Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Building Projects, Derby

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Education (1) whether he will reconsider his decision about the construction of a new school building to replace the present building occupied by St. Mary's Secondary School in Derby; and if he will now approve the inclusion of this project in the school-building programme for 1964–65;

(2) what reply he has sent to the letter addressed to him by the Town Clerk of Derby, conveying to him the concern of the county borough council about his decision to approve none of the school building projects proposed by the council for the year 1964–65.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The Town Clerk's letter has been acknowledged and a further reply promised. I shall consider the request together with those from other authorities in the light of the current review of capital investment and the future load on the building industry.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I first ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he hopes to send a personal answer to the council's protest, as all the council's members, including its Conservative members, voted in favour? Is he aware that on this occasion Mr. Gann, the regional officer, signed this himself but addressed it to the local education authority, Derbyshire, which does not show a great sense of personal responsibility and attention to a matter which, to Derby, is of great importance?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if there has been any mistake of that kind I will make a point of sending a personal letter myself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that the Roman Catholic school has been in the development plan for the borough since 1944; and that the Roman Catholic authorities have had no new building in the borough for forty years, and are at present turning away half the children who are applying to come in?

Sir E. Boyle: I realise the full facts. Of course, while the replacement of these various Roman Catholic secondary schools would product more roomy and better conditions for both primary and secondary children, these projects must be looked at together with the large number of other important projects in other parts of the country when the final size of the 1964–65 national programme is settled.

Training and Supply of Teachers (Advisory Council's Report)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education (1) what plans he has for widening the scope of some training colleges so that they may attract ordinary degree students seeking careers in the social services, etc., as well as teaching, on the lines advocated in paragraph 77 of the 8th Report of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers;

(2) what steps he is taking to carry out the recommendation of paragraph 83 of the 8th Report of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers that federal degree-giving institutions should be formed around a regional nucleus of training colleges and colleges of further education.

Sir E. Boyle: The Report to which the bon. Member refers was forwarded to the Committee on Higher Education at the National Advisory Council's request, but my predecessor made it plain that in doing this he was not to be regarded as committed to any particular conclusion in the Report. I am sure it is sensible to await the recommendations of Lord Robbins' Committee before considering alterations of long-term significance either to the scope or to the organisation of the training colleges.

Mr. Boyden: Surely, the answer to Question No. 4 is well within the scope of the Minister's responsibilities. Has he had no consultation with the training colleges to see what can be done? Why does he not try one or two experiments as a preliminary to waiting for the Robbins Report?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member will know that a number of experiments are going on. At the moment, four colleges in the London Institute of Education have four-year courses of combined degree work and teacher training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that one difficulty in the immediate situation is that to diversify the rôle of training colleges, as suggested in paragraph 77 of the 8th Report, would be to diminish the number of places available to students in training as teachers and, as he knows, the first priority at present is to extend the supply of teachers from the training colleges. I will certainly look at this again, but my own feeling at the moment is that it is right to await the Report of the Robbins Committee.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that there is a very serious crisis in teacher supply. In view of that, would he consider the Government's publishing a White Paper on teacher supply, and providing for a debate in the House?

Sir E. Boyle: That is a rather wider question than that on the Order Paper. We debated teacher supply at some length only recently, but I will certainly consider whether there is any convenient means whereby I can make more information on the subject available to the House.

Burnham Committee's Proposals (Discussions)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the names of the two local authority representatives on the Burnham Committee with whom he discussed the disputed Burnham proposals in confidence, and the reasons which led him to consult these two persons rather than the leaders of the local authorities and the teacher's panels respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: Between 24th January, when the Burnham Committee sent me details of its provisional agreement, and 8th March when it ratified this agree-

ment, I discussed my proposed rejection of the Committee's proposals with eight representatives of the local authority associations represented on the Burnham Committee. On 1st March I saw a deputation of members of the authorities and the teachers' panels of the Committee. I regard all these discussions as having been confidential.

Mr. Thomas: Is it not a fact that the Minister saw two distinguished members of the party opposite, not in their representative capacity, who were serving on the Burnham Committee. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is another indication of the unhappy way in which he has undermined the confidence which teachers and local authorities have a right to place in him?

Sir E. Boyle: I saw eight people. They were not all political supporters of this side of the House, but I do not want to make anything of that point because I do not regard this as a party political issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly not. This is a perfectly proper use of my power as Minister under Section 89 of the Act. As deadlock seemed imminent it seemed wholly reasonable for me and any responsible party in the education service to discuss informally and confidentially possible ways of avoiding deadlock. I still think that that was a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is bound to know the two gentlemen to whom I referred. Did he not see them on their own, quite apart from the others?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Member that I did not see anybody in the guise of political supporters of the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Anyone I saw—and this is an important point—I saw entirely because of their position in the local authority world.

Mr. Willey: But did the right hon. Gentleman happen to see two people of the same party as his own and did he see those people separately?

Sir E. Boyle: Quite genuinely I assure the House that I do not know how quite a number of people I saw vote at elections. I did not see any of these people because I regarded them


as political supporters of the present Government, I saw them because of the part which I hoped they could play in helping to resolve the present deadlock.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Essex

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education how many schools, school places, school children and teachers will be transferred from the present Essex Education Authority to prospective new Greater London Essex boroughs; what will be the financial effect of this on the future Essex County Council; and if provisional arrangements are being made in respect of school children living near the boundaries of the prospective new boroughs for whom it is more convenient to attend schools beyond those boundaries.

Sir E. Boyle: The local education authority's provisional estimate is 385 schools, 132,364 pupils, and 5,413 teachers, and their transfer is likely to reduce the county estimates by £9·8 million. The change in boundaries need not cause any change in school catchment areas.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that children under the responsibility of the Essex Education Authority in future will not suffer in any way because of this new local government rearrangement? Will not the right hon. Gentleman also agree, in connection with the latter part of the Question, that it is very desirable to make arrangements now to avoid confusion in future?

Sir E. Boyle: I entirely agree with the latter part of the hon. Member's remarks. There cannot be any question of excluding children attending schools over the border at the time of the change. That is important. Arrangements for admission will continue to be the responsibility of the Essex County Council until 1st April, 1965, but if the hon. Member has any representations to make to me I am perfectly ready to play any part I properly can to make sure that the change-over takes place as smoothly as possible.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of the

Question? Is he satisfied that there will be no detrimental effects on these children?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Member looks at the first part of the supplementary answer I gave, he will find that I said that children will not be excluded who are attending schools over the border when the transfer comes along. I believe it will be quite possible to make arrangements which will prevent damage to the interests of the children.

Abu Simbel (Monuments)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Education what help, financial and otherwise, the Government will give towards the recent Swedish plan put before the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to save the statues and temples of Abu Simbel.

Sir E. Boyle: The Government have already indicated that there is no question at the moment of joining in the appeal made by U.N.E.S.C.O. for contributions to the cost of saving these statues and temples. The particular plan to which the hon. Member refers is only one of several which have been put forward in U.N.E.S.C.O. as alternatives to the original proposal, and a final decision has yet to be taken.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Answer is very disappointing? Does he not agree that these temples and statues are a very important part of the heritage of mankind? Does he not agree further that all civilised nations, and particularly Great Britain, should do what they can to preserve them for future generations?

Sir E. Boyle: I sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend, but the basic reason for the attitude of the United Kingdom has been that the educational needs of the developing countries should have first claim on resources that can be made available to U.N.E.S.C.O. I think that that was the right stand to take.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the U.N.E.S.C.O. campaign to save these precious monuments has unanimous support in the Council of Europe and that the attitude of his predecessor began with mild sympathy and ended with cold indifference? Does


not the right hon. Gentleman realise that to give help to the U.N.E.S.C.O. project could be a contribution not only to culture but to world understanding and peace?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to prejudge too finally, because two alternative plans to the original proposal were considered by the Executive Committee of the Nubia Appeal Fund last week and will shortly be considered by the Executive Board of U.N.E.S.C.O. In view of the limited funds available to U.N.E.S.C.O., I believe that we have been right as a country to say that priority should be given to the educational needs of developing countries.

Television Educational Programmes

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: asked the Minister of Education what evidence he has of the value to schools of television educational programmes; and whether he will initiate further research into the effect of such programmes and into their methods of putting information across.

Sir E. Boyle: The growing popularity with the schools and the teachers of the schools television programmes of both B.B.C. and I.T.A. is the best evidence of their value. Several other countries provide similar evidence. I am considering whether I should initiate specific research into the effect of television on the teaching process.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. When he is considering the possibility of initiating further research, will he also bear in mind the possibility of co-ordinating the educational television programmes to be put out on both networks? Will he also give consideration to the views of those people—and I do not necessarily associate myself with those views—who advocate a separate educational channel?

Sir E. Boyle: The Government's mind is by no means closed on any of these matters. I ought to say in answer to the original Question that I know of no published research in the country based on controlled experiments into the efficacy of television teaching in schools and I am considering now whether it might be valuable to initiate research on its effects.

Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind—and consider the matter with urgency—that there is widespread opinion that a great deal of money is now being wasted on television education because its effect is not being properly looked into?

Sir E. Boyle: I accept the hon. Lady's view that there is a good deal of concern. I hope that the range of B.B.C. schools broadcasts on television will be increased when the second channel comes into operation. It is important that we not only have more television schools broadcasts but that we should ensure that the money is spent as wisely as possible. This is why I stress the importance of research.

Mr. Rankin: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know of any research being carried out on closed-circuit television teaching, would he get in touch with the Glasgow Education Authority, through its director in Glasgow, where such experiments are now going on?

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad to hear that. I do not normally have many dealings with Glasgow Education Authority, for obvious reasons, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

School Leavers (Scottish Bank Notes)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Education what provision is made in the curricula for those school leavers who enter commercial and distributive employment with a view to facilitating an understanding of the nature and importance of Scottish bank notes and familiarising people with them as a medium of exchange.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not know of any, but I do not collect detailed information of this character.

Mr. Dempsey: The right hon. Gentleman must have some interest in the curricula in schools in England. Does not he realise that school leavers entering, for instance, the distributive trades are completely unfamiliar with Scottish bank notes? In addition to training English pupils with the assistance of imitation English bank notes, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the use of imitation Scottish bank notes so as to avoid


embarrassment to school leavers working in shops and to Scottish people doing their shopping in England?

Sir E. Boyle: If I were to send round a circular telling all the schools that they should teach their pupils about Scottish bank notes, then I think some of the charges currently being made against me might acquire some plausibility.

Roman Catholic Primary Schools, Essex

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Education how many Roman Catholic primary schools have been built, rebuilt, or substantially enlarged in the county of Essex during the past ten years; how many Roman Catholic primary schools in Essex fall seriously short of the minimum physical requirements laid down by his Department, being overcrowded and having inadequate sanitation and storage space and having no hall; and if he will publish in HANSARD lists of the schools in these categories, with the dates of building, rebuilding and substantial enlargement and the dates by which he expects that the inadequate and overcrowded schools will have been replaced.

Sir E. Boyle: Of the 37 Roman Catholic primary schools in Essex, 19 have been built, rebuilt or substantially enlarged in the last ten years. I will circulate a list of these in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The remainder fall short of the standards prescribed in the Standards for School Premises Regulations for a variety of reasons.
In January, 1963, 33 of the 37 schools contained one or more classes over the regulation size, but this overcrowding was not necessarily due to inadequate accommodation.
I am anxious to press on with the replacement of inadequate and overcrowded primary schools but cannot forecast the date by which this will be achieved.
The more detailed information asked for by the hon. Member cannot be produced without special inquiry by the local education authority.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman at least convinced by these comparative figures that the case for the

rebuilding of St. Joseph's School, Barking, is a very strong one. Does he realise that it is now eight years since his predecessor said:
This is just the kind of project that I would like to see go ahead as soon as there is some relaxation of the extreme pressure on the resources at my disposal"?
Are we not now in a period of expansion?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member has a Question later on the Order Paper about St. Joseph's School. Half of the 37 Roman Catholic primary schools have been built, rebuilt or enlarged over the last ten years. This surely is a sign that Roman Catholic needs in Essex are not being neglected.

Mr. Driberg: They are in Barking.

Following is the list:


School
Date of opening after building or rebuilding, or of enlargement


Colchester, St. Thomas More
1954


Harwich, St. Joseph's
1955


Chelmsford, St. Pius X
1956


Braintree, St. Francis
1962


Canvey Island, St. Joseph's
1955


Basildon, St. Teresa's
1957


Brentwood, St. Helen's (Infants)
1960


Stanford-le-Hope, St. Joseph's
1955


Aveley, Holy Cross (Junior)
1957


Aveley, Holy Cross (Infant)
1956


Rainham, La Salette
1957


Upminster, St. Joseph's
1956


Loughton, St. John Fisher
1955


Harlow, St. Albans
1956


Harlow, Tye Green, Holy Cross
1960


Wanstead, Our Lady of Lourdes
1961


Romford, Harold Hill St. Ursula's (Infant)
1955


Romford, Harold Hill St. Ursula's (Junior)
1957


Romford, St. Patrick's
1960

St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School, Barking

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Education if he has received a petition signed by 19,280 electors of varying faiths, resident in the Borough of Barking, Essex, urging him to approve the inclusion in the 1964–65 programme of the rebuilding of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School, Barking, which was destroyed by bombing in 1941; and if he will ascertain from the Roman Catholic authorities how urgently necessary they now believe this project to be.

Sir E. Boyle: I have received the petition. I do not think it necessary to


make fresh inquiries since I know that the Roman Catholic authorities regard this project as urgent. As the hon. Member was told last week, I am aware of conditions at the school, and I am prepared to look again at the Essex building programme for 1964–65 if additional resources become available.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of looking at the copy of a letter dated 12th March, 1956, which I sent to him? Does not that seem rather to dispose of what the Parliamentary Secretary said last Thursday about the attitude of the Roman Catholic authorities?

Sir E. Boyle: I have tried to read all the back papers on this file. In fact, my hon. Friend was not altogether wrong about it. It is true that this project did appear in the programme proposed for 1957–58 but it was then dropped until 1963–64. However, I recognise that this is a project which must have a place in the queue if it is possible to enlarge the school building programme for next-year.

Spanish

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Education how many pupils study Spanish in schools in England and Wales; whether any pupils have spent time in Spanish-speaking countries under education authority auspices; and whether he will set up a committee to consider the teaching of Spanish, similar to the Annan Committee on the teaching of Russian, in view of the growing importance of trade with South America.

Sir E. Boyle: I have at present no precise information in answer to the first part of the Question. The number of pupils offering Spanish in the General Certificate of Education has risen, and I understand that school journeys to Spain are not uncommon. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No", but I hope that the extension of modern language teaching in primary schools will lead to an increase in the teaching of Spanish and other languages at the secondary school stage.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the objections to setting up such a committee?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot help feeling at present that we should not set up too

many committees to study the teaching of individual languages in the sort of way the hon. Gentleman suggests; in any case, we should not be able to do very much more without having a stronger basis of language teaching in the primary schools than we have today. If the hon. Gentleman would care to come to see me about it, I am quite ready to discuss the matter with him further. He may not know that there has been a quite sharp increase in the number of candidates offering A-level Spanish; it went up in the 1950s from 518 to 1,412, and it has been going up quite sharply during recent years.

Mr. Proudfoot: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we went over to the decimal coinage system, languages could be taught much earlier in the primary schools?

Sir E. Boyle: I recently announced what I regard as a quite important project in French teaching in primary schools, which will, I hope, lay the basis for considerably more diversified modern language teaching at the secondary stage.

School Building Programme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities and committees of excepted districts have expressed to him their dissatisfaction about the size of next year's school building programme; in how many cases he has found it possible to approve additional projects; and what sum of money still remains to be allocated.

Sir E. Boyle: Representations have been received from sixty-three English local education authorities and four excepted districts and from the Welsh Joint Education Committee. I shall need to complete my consideration of these appeals before deciding what additional projects I am able to approve. Priority must be given to the provision of new school places where there is a shortage. The final value of the programme will depend upon the review of capital investment and of the capacity of the building industry on which the Government is engaged.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is really widespread discontent among local education authorities, as evidenced


by the number which have indicated their dissatisfaction to him? Will he, in the course of his review, look at the school building programme over the last ten years? Does he realise that, after such an examination, he must come to the conclusion that his Ministry has persistently underestimated the need for new school building, and will he, therefore, do his best in the Cabinet to step up the whole programme?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate the effect of the figures I gave. By no means all the sixty-three authorities concerned were seriously critical. In some cases they wished only to make representations about one or two particular projects. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the course of this Parliament, education building starts as a whole have gone up by 43 per cent.

Mr. Willey: In view of the almost universal dissatisfaction among local authorities, and in view of the fact that it is necessary to take a decision very soon if they are to be given good notice for next year, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that this figure will be reviewed and extended?

Sir E. Boyle: No; I cannot give any undertaking. The hon. Gentleman has himself drawn attention to the difficulty. I announced the interim programme as soon as I could precisely because of the length of time it takes to plan schools. We have a longer planning cycle than other Departments concerned with public investment. The final programme cannot be decided until all the public sector has been surveyed. This is the difficulty here. I shall reach a final figure as soon as possible, but it is necessary to survey the situation. The hon. Gentleman knows the trend of public investment at present. It is likely that pressure on building resources for public as well as private reasons will, in 1964–65, be higher.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the limiting factor money or just the physical resources of the building industry, and is the choice between building schools or, say, building hospitals and slum clearance?

Sir E. Boyle: The primary limiting factor here is pressure on building resources. [HON. MEMBERS: "Non-

sense."] Certainly, it is. I was about to say that it has been the experience under all Governments, not least under the party opposite, that, if the level of starts is too high relative to resources, this merely means that schools and other forms of public building are completed in much longer time.

Speech Therapists

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities in England and Wales are without the services of a speech therapist at the present time.

Sir E. Boyle: Twenty, Sir.

Mr. Fitch: What steps is the Minister taking to help those local education authorities which wish to obtain the services of a speech therapist to do so?

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the Manchester training school opened in 1960 will improve recruitment in the North, and I am considering the establishment of a further new school in the North-
East.

Mr. Hilton: Is not the main stumbling-block to the recruitment of speech therapists the appallingly low salary paid? Will the Minister consider increasing the salary scale, since these people have specialised training for very important work? I feel sure that, if he did increase the salaries, this would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Sir E. Boyle: For status and pay, speech therapists are regarded as analogous to the professions supplementary to medicine, and questions on that subject should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Youth Service (Building Projects)

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Education the total amount of money for building projects for Youth Service work applied for by local education authorities in 1962–63; and what was the total value of the projects approved by him.

Sir E. Boyle: The figures are £7·9 million and £3·6 million, respectively.

Mr. Denis Howell: There is a lot of interest in the post-Albemarle era, but, although quite a lot has been going on,


neither the House nor the country has been told about it. What steps is the Minister taking to give us information about what his Ministry is doing following the Albemarle Report?

Sir E. Boyle: If the Opposition care to put the subject down for, say, a half Supply Day, that would be extremely helpful, I think. Alternatively, any hon. Gentleman interested in the subject might care to raise the matter on private Member's day. That is by far the most convenient way.

St. John's Roman Catholic Primary School, Brentford

Mr. D. Smith: asked the Minister of Education if he will reconsider his decision to exclude the rebuilding of St. John's Roman Catholic Primary School, Brentford, from the 1964–65 school building programme, in view of the handicaps imposed on the teaching staff by an out-of-date building.

Sir E. Boyle: I am meeting a deputation from the Middlesex local education authority tomorrow. I shall, of course, consider carefully any case it may make for this or any other project, but the possibility of enlarging the programme depends on the review of capital investment and of the capacity of the building industry on which the Government are engaged.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Government school building record generally is excellent, there must be a few black spots? This is one such black spot affecting a large number of people in the Brentford area. As this school building is, perhaps, about the worst in the whole Middlesex area, will my right hon. Friend consider this project particularly sympathetically?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not wish to prejudge the result of talks I shall have with the deputation tomorrow. I realise that the premises of this school are very poor. It is just that I do not this afternoon wish to prejudge the importance of this school as compared with the other schools which have been mentioned at Question Time today. All these projects will be reviewed if the total programme of starts can be extended.

Teachers

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Education to what extent widowed mothers with the necessary educational qualifications whose children have reached the age of 18 years are encouraged to return to the teaching profession.

Sir E. Boyle: It is my policy to encourage married women teachers, including those mentioned by the hon. Lady, to return to the schools as soon as they think it right to do so in the light of their family commitments. The teacher training colleges welcome older applicants, both men and women, who have the necessary educational qualifications and can offer a substantial period of service in the schools.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that sympathetic reply. Has he yet received a reply from the Cabinet to the representations that he has made about the disability of the application of the earnings rule to widows' pensions when they re-enter the education service? Is he aware of the disadvantage that widows are under compared with married women? When will my right hon. Friend receive this answer from the Cabinet, and when can we expect action in order that widows may be as fairly treated in this field as married women?

Sir E. Boyle: Matters relating to widows' pensions are, in the first instance, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but, with my right hon. Friend, I will take note of the point which my hon. Friend has made.

Mrs. White: Surely the Minister appreciates that, if he wants widows who will be very suitable as teachers to return to the teaching profession, he must do something about it and take up this most serious grievance?

Sir E. Boyle: I realise the importance which hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen generally on both sides of the House attach to this matter, and I will bear it in mind.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend yet raised this point in the


Cabinet, because, if the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is asked about it, he says that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Education? I am sick of this passing the buck.

Sir E. Boyle: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but it would not be proper for me to say what either or both of us raised in the Cabinet at one time or another.

Mr. Driberg: Does the Minister consider that the answers which he has given today measure up to the high rhetoric of his party political broadcast last night?

Sir E. Boyle: That matter is better decided by the House than by me.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Government Commission for England (Report)

Sir E. Leather: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the total cost, including travel, printing, maps, fees, etc., for producing Report No. 4 of the Local Government Commission for England.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): The cost of printing the Local Government Commission's Report No. 4 and the definitive maps which accompanied it was £2,377.
As the Local Government Commission is engaged on several reviews at the same time, I regret it is not possible to identify the cost of the review which preceded this Report.

Sir E. Leather: I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures. Is he aware that the many thousands of people in the County of Somerset who are affected by these proposals and all the local authorities—the county council, all the district councils and all the parish councils—are unanimously and strenuously opposed to these recommendations? Will he give the House an assurance that it is no part of his policy to force administrative changes on people who neither need them nor want them?

Sir K. Joseph: As my hon. Friend knows, a very precise procedure is laid down by Parliament for the conduct of

these local government reviews, and I shall follow that procedure. I know that my hon. Friend is raising the matter on the Adjournment on Monday when, perhaps, we can look into it more fully.

Sir E. Leather: I am well aware of the point which my right hon. Friend makes about the procedure. What I am concerned about is policy. Will he give us an assurance about his feelings on this very important matter?

Sir K. Joseph: My policy is laid down for me by the Statute which lays down the considerations that have to be borne in mind by the Minister and by the Government of the day.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Sir E. Leather) that it is the Government's policy to force administrative changes on people against their will? The hon. Gentleman himself assisted them in doing so with regard to London.

Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he has taken and intends to take to publicise the provisions of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My right hon. Friend sent a circular about this Act to local authorities in December last and also referred to it in the Annual Report of the Ministry for 1962.

Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that circulars sent to local authorities achieve no publicity whatever in the nation? Is he further aware that a large number of farm houses and other minor buildings which are, nevertheless, buildings of important historic interest, might well benefit under this Act if wider publicity were given to it in the country?

Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend that a very great deal of publicity was given to this Act when it was before Parliament. All the evidence is that the powers are widely known, certainly among the major preservation societies. Indeed, copies of the circular have been in heavy demand. It has had to be reprinted, and is almost a best seller.

Land, Slough (Prices)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he is considering to prevent profiteering in the prices of land in the neighbourhood of the newly-opened Slough section of M.4, in view of the effect this is having on housing and other development costs.

Mr. Corfield: I have no evidence of any abnormal rise in land prices in this area.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the prices of land along the roads which the community is providing are rising and are having a devastating effect on housing costs? The people of Slough are very much concerned, because, in the case of the nearby Maidenhead area by-pass, a five-acre site for building houses has just been sold for £56,000.

Mr. Manuel: And the hon. Gentleman does not know it!

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman do something to stop this profiteering?

Mr. Corfield: The general view expressed at inquiries into these matters is that motorways have a depressing effect on the price of land rather than the reverse. All that my right hon. Friend can do is to try to ensure that there is adequate land for development available in relation to the demand, and this he is doing.

Mr. MacColl: Is not this a clear example of the powerlessness of the Government under present legislation to cope in any way with the reaping of betterment by people who have done nothing at all in the development of these areas, and does it not show the need to introduce legislation immediately to cope with this problem?

Mr. Corfield: As I understand the proposals of the party opposite, they merely entail a form of taxation, which has never yet reduced the price of anything.

Civil Defence

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what revision

he has made of his civil defence plan for evacuating 12 million people in case of nuclear war, so as to take account of the changes in railway transport proposed by Dr. Beeching and approved by the Government.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the Government's plans to make available a scheme for the dispersal of 9½ million people in priority classes from certain towns in England and Wales. The Government are considering what effect the proposals for the reorganisation of the railways would have on the detailed planning of this scheme.

Mr. Zilliacus: When the Government have finished their consideration, will they be kind enough to arrange a debate on the matter in view of the great doubt about whether the scheme can be carried out at all during the general period of alert before a four-minute warning, which is the period assigned in the policy?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that the usual channels will note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Government's consideration take place after the closures have been imposed, or before?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it plain that the Government are studying the implications of this Report now.

Office Building, London (Parking Space)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the ratio of parking space to square feet of office space in the new Vickers building; and how this ratio compares with that for other office buildings in Central London completed or approved during the last five years.

Mr. Corfield: I am informed that the car parking standards in use by the London County Council at the time when the Council granted planning permission for the erection of the Vickers building required one car space for every 2,500 sq. ft. gross of floor space. As the office building has an area of 500,000 sq. ft., this would have involved a minimum requirement of 200 car spaces. In fact, 210 spaces were provided.
The London County Council revised the standard in June, 1959, to one car space per 2,000 sq. ft. gross of office floor space. That remains the current standard.

Mrs. Butler: Bearing in mind that these skyscraper office blocks inevitably involve many more cars coming into London, will the hon. Gentleman initiate urgent discussions with the London County Council on this whole problem before any further consents are given? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Middlesex, for example, has much more stringent conditions, which require one car parking space for every 500 sq. ft. of office space?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has no evidence that the London County Council's standards are unreasonable. It is, of course, open to the Council to change them if it thinks fit.

Town Centre Redevelopment Schemes (Railway Services)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs which towns from which it is proposed to remove railway facilities under the railway reorganisation scheme are undertaking or proposing to undertake comprehensive redevelopment or urban renewal schemes based on surveys of the present traffic position.

Mr. Corfield: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of towns with town centre redevelopment schemes in progress or in preparation from which the withdrawal of all rail passenger services is proposed under the railway reorganisation scheme.

Mrs. Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman consider with the Minister of Transport what technical advice can be given immediately to these towns so that they can take into consideration the changes in traffic flow and the changes which they will need to make in their schemes if the Beeching Report is implemented, because otherwise there will be very costly miscalculations?

Mr. Corfield: I have no doubt whatever that local authorities will be considering their reactions to these proposals. If they make objection to their transport users consultative committee, it will

be considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Following is the list:


Abingdon.
Haverhill.


Ashton-in-Makerfield.
Hucknall.


Ashton-under-Lyne.
Kenilworth.


Bedlington.
Kirkby-in-Ashfield.


Bedworth.
Mansfield.


Blaydon.
Mansfield Woodhouse.


Blyth.
Melton Mowbray.


Bodmin.
Middleton.


Brierley Hill.
Newport (I.O.W.).


Bridgnorth (Salop).
Newport Pagnell.


Brixham.
Prestwich.


Caernarvon.
Sidmouth.


Cannock.
Sudbury (Suffolk).


Cirencester.
Sutton-in-Ashfield


Darlaston.
Tiverton.


Droylsden.
Whitehaven.


Dunstable.
Willenhall.


Eccles.
Worsley.


Exmouth.

Porthcawl Council (Letter)

Mr. Morris: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the Clerk of the Porthcawl Council's letter to him drawing his attention to the hardships caused by revaluation and the rate demand to ratepayers in its area.

Sir K. Joseph: I have sent the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

Mr. Morris: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his reply. Would he agree that this increase is particularly onerous to the ratepayers, especially having regard to the lack of industry in the area? Is he aware that a large number of pensioners come to retire at Porthcawl? Am I to understand from his letter that he can offer no immediate relief to the ratepayers of Porthcawl?

Sir K. Joseph: I certainly can offer no immediate relief, although the committee Which I am just about to set up will make its inquiries in just that sort of situation. I would only say that the ratepayers of Porthcawl are returning, so far as the share of the burden on the domestic ratepayer is concerned, to the pre-1955 pattern, although this is small comfort to those who are particularly hit.

Mr. C. Hughes: Will there be representatives from Wales on the committee that the Minister is about to set up?

Sir K. Joseph: No. This is not in any way a representative committee. It is purely a fact-finding committee and we shall keep it as small as possible to do the job quickly.

Mr. Hughes: How can the facts in Wales be ascertained accurately unless there is a Welsh representative on the committee? Does not the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister for Welsh Affairs, realise that it is his duty to consider the Welsh position in the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but I have every confidence in Welsh authorities and Welsh men and women being able to make their case to a committee when it is set up.

Goldendale Foundry, Tunstall

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what measures have been taken by the Inspectorate to control and prevent the smoke and sulphur nuisance from the Goldendale Foundry, Tunstall.

Mr. Corfield: New arrestment plant complying with the Alkali Inspectorate's requirements is due to start operating this month to deal with the blast furnace emissions, including smoke. At the Inspectorate's instance the company continues to seek more effective means of controlling emissions from the hot blast cupolas. There are virtually no sulphur oxides in the blast furnace gases and little in the hot blast cupola gases.

Mrs. Slater: Is the Minister aware that this has been going on for several years and that each time the matter is raised the firm promises that in another month it will do something? What assurance have we that this great nuisance to these people will be eliminated completely?

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the company has been energetic in pursuing a remedy. Difficulties have arisen since the installation of the blast furnace arrestment plant owing to the difficulties in installing ancillary equipment, some of which was damaged. As I have said, however, this is to begin operating this month. With regard to the hot blast cupolas, I understand that major difficulties have been encountered and that

a new firm of plant manufacturers has been commissioned to help to find a remedy.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Local Authorities (Documents)

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether expenditure incurred by local authorities in Wales who print documents in the Welsh language ranks for grant to the same extent as when they are printed in English.

Sir K. Joseph: There is no specific grant for the printing of documents in either language but the expenditure ranks for rate-deficiency grant.

Mr. Roberts: Is there a list of approved items for this purpose in both languages? Will the Minister consider issuing a comprehensive statement on the matter and distributing it among all Welsh authorities, as there is uncertainty as to the position?

Sir K. Joseph: That would involve a number of my right hon. Friends, but I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Local Authority Houses (Ceiling Heights)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many houses built on behalf of local authorities in England and Wales during each of the last six years the maximum height of the rooms was limited to 7 ft. 6 in.

Mr. Corfield: The ceiling height of 7 ft. 6 in. specified by the vast majority of local authorities in their byelaws is a a minimum, not a maximum, height. Information about the number of houses built with rooms of a given height is not available.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that too many people who live in comfortable homes are too willing to bring about a reduction in the standards of the homes of other people. Is he aware that his right hon. Friend's predecessor made a statement twelve


months ago that many new houses are small, ill-equipped, unsightly to look at and just plain ugly? Will not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend do something to improve the standard of houses?

Mr. Corfield: I do not consider that the question of 6 in. in height is strictly relevant. Careful comparative tests were carried out in 1950 comparing 7 ft. 6 in. ceilings with 8ft. ceilings and no adverse effect was found in respect of either ventilation, daylighting, health, comfort or convenience.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. H. V. PENNELLS

Commander Kerans: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the late Mr. H. V. Pennells was wrongly blamed in Command Paper No. 2009; and whether he will cause further inquiries to be made especially from those who knew him.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have no evidence for thinking that the Tribunal was mistaken in its conclusions about the late Mr. Pennells; but it is important to see these conclusions in proper perspective. The Tribunal considered that Mr. Penells was remiss and lacking in judgment in not taking effective action, notwithstanding warnings from the Foreign Office, to seek a review of the system of selecting subordinate staff for naval attachés behind the Iron Curtain. But it said that it would be unjust to conclude that Mr. Pennells had been negligent of his public duty, and it commented that in general he was efficient and conscientious and served the Admiralty well.

Commander Kerans: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there is considerable feeling in the country that the late Mr. Pennells was made the scapegoat in this sordid affair? Surely the blame should be taken collectively in the Admiralty by the heads of department concerned. I served with Mr. Pennells when I was in the Admiralty in 1951 and 1952 and again, when naval attaché, I had considerable dealings with him subsequently in 1954 and 1955 when I went to Bangkok. In all my experience he was honest, hard working and conscientious and I do not feel that his family should

be singled out for the treatment which has been meted out to them without the ability to answer back.

The Prime Minister: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's feelings and that is why I thought it right, in answering the Question, to draw attention to the Tribunal's favourable comments upon the late Mr. Pennells so as to put the Question in perspective.

Mr. Lipton: Does it not strike the Prime Minister as rather mean that the only person to be seriously criticised by the Tribunal was a dead man who could not answer for himself, whereas the other evidence showed that quite a number of people who were far more blameworthy were completely exonerated?

The Prime Minister: It was under an Order of the House that the Tribunal was appointed and has made its Report. It is not for me to do more than I have tried to do, to point out that the Tribunal found that this man was an experienced and valuable officer and thought that he had made a slip on this occasion.

Captain Litchfield: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the statement in paragraph 73 of the Report that
Despite representations by Mr. Pennells that the field of choice ought not to be restricted by the discouragement of married men, considerations of economy dictated that preference should be offered to applicants who were single"?

The Prime Minister: That is a general question which it would be relevant to discuss when we discuss the Report of the Tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (MILITARY AID)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he has made the giving of military aid to India in connection with the Chinese attack on her conditional on India reaching a settlement with Pakistan on the subject of Kashmir.

The Prime Minister: In his statement to the House on 3rd December, my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary said that he and Mr. Averell Harriman had told Mr. Nehru that, when it came to considering longer-term military aid to India, the British and American peoples


would be unhappy to see that an appreciable part of the Indian Army was being deployed not for defence against China, but for defence against Pakistan; they had expressed to Mr. Nehru the strong hope that a new attempt would therefore be made to settle the differences between India and Pakistan. That is still our attitude. No decisions about long-term military aid have yet been taken. As the House knows, the Governments of India and Pakistan are engaged in a series of discussions about Kashmir and related problems. We greatly hope that they will reach a settlement satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Prime Minister agree that, while we all regard a settlement of the Kashmir problem as highly desirable, it would be a great mistake, and probably entirely self-defeating, to link to this question the question of arms aid to India to repel the Chinese aggression? Would it not be much better to keep these things completely separate?

The Prime Minister: As the House knows, we made an agreement on 27th November, particulars of which were given to the House on 29th November, for the immediate dispatch of arms. That agreement provided that the arms and military equipment that we provide are for the purpose of defending India against Chinese aggression. We are now discussing, together with the American Government, what long-term arrangements should be made.

Mr. H. Wilson: While the whole House wants to see a settlement of the Kashmir dispute, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is now a very long time—more than six months—since he and the late Hugh Gaitskell, with the full support of the House, made very warmhearted speeches here about what should be done to help India against Chinese aggression? It is six months since we proposed from this side of the House a substantial degree of lease-lend aid to India.
While we have had these immediate shipments, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable part of the Indian Air Force is grounded through lack of British-made spares? Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Govern-

ment immediately to see that these spares are made available and shipped to India to put the Indian Air Force in order? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that we are not going to hold up our answer to India's request because of the Kashmir dispute?

The Prime Minister: We have carried out the agreement most loyally and have sent a very large supply of immediate aid. We are now discussing longer-term aid. I will look into the particular questions the right hon. Gentleman has raised We are discussing aid over a much wider field, and that does require much consideration from both sides.

Miss Lee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the psychological factors in delay and in the excessive pressures that senior members of his Administration are making no secret about having taken place, far from helping a settlement of the Kashmir dispute are now very much worsening the situation, and that, furthermore, the recent behaviour of the British Government's representatives has gone a long way to undo the wonderful relations established by the generous and immediate help we gave at the time of the Chinese aggression?

The Prime Minister: I think that that is an exaggeration. It is true that when one tries to help to settle a difficult problem one runs the risk of being attacked on both sides. Nevertheless, we have done what we can, although in the most tactful and diplomatic way.

Mr. H. Wilson: Can the Prime Minister say whether the delay of more than five months since the signature of the agreement in November is due entirely to procurement difficulties or to checking India's request for aircraft and other things, or whether there is a political factor causing the delay?

The Prime Minister: Everything that was agreed to be done under the agreement has been or will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL SEATS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Prime Minister what will be the functions of those appointed to take charge of the


respective regional seats of government in the event of a nuclear attack upon the United Kingdom; what will be the limits of their civil or military jurisdiction; and under what legal authority those functions will be exercised.

The Prime Minister: Regional Commissioners in war would be responsible to the Government for the co-ordination and, where necessary, the control of all measures that could be taken in their respective regions to help the population. The necessary regulations for this purpose would be made.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the Question which is concerned with the legal authority under which these very wide powers would be exercised? Does not he concede that, assuming that these measures would become necessary, they are very drastic? Does not he agree that everybody would be much better off, and the situation would be much clearer, if there were no question of any challenge to the legal authority under which such wide powers were administered?
Would it not be much better if the Government came clean with the House of Commons and the country as to what the circumstances would be following a nuclear attack and what drastic powers in defiance of Parliamentary democracy would become necessary?

The Prime Minister: If the situation seemed to require it, it would, of course, be right to introduce an Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill under which these regulations could be made. But if something had to be done unexpectedly and in a hurry, it would be done and the Government would seek the support of the House subsequently.

Mr. Emery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those people who live near, or have some knowledge of the possible existence of, these installations, and who have tried to keep the information to themselves for the nation's security, are more than a little exasperated by the behaviour of those who have disclosed it? Will my right hon. Friend urge those who continue to use this information for their own publicity to have a little more responsibility and patriotism?

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the nature

of such an emergency as he contemplates will be more serious and more urgent than in the case of the last war, and that in these circumstances there will not be time to introduce an Emergency Powers Bill? Will he further bear in mind that full effect was given to these considerations before the last war, when the Government were at least careful to take full emergency powers before the emergency occurred? Does not he think it worth while to do that now?

The Prime Minister: Happily I see no sign of the international situation deteriorating as it did in the months immediately preceding the last war.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUEEN FREDERIKA OF GREECE

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister what measures were taken by Her Majesty's Government for the protection of Queen Frederika of Greece during her recent visit to London; to what extent these measures proved unsatisfactory; and why it was considered necessary to issue an apology in the names of the Foreign and Home Secretaries, in view of the fact that the apology covered only the exercise by certain citizens of the normal British democratic right of making representations by peaceful demonstration.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister why an apology was made to the Queen of Greece concerning demonstrations in London against imprisonment for political reasons in Greece; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister why the recent note was sent to Queen Frederika of Greece concerning political prisoners in Greece.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister why an apology was tendered on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to Queen Frederika, when British subjects made a peaceful protest against the prolonged imprisonment for political reasons of men who had fought on the Allied side in the last war.

Mrs. Hart: asked the Prime Minister why Her Majesty's Government apologised to Queen Frederika of Greece for peaceful demonstrations in London


involving the demand of British citizens for the release of Greek political prisoners.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons which prompted Her Majesty's Government to send a written apology to the Queen of Greece following representations which were made to her about certain political prisoners.

The Prime Minister: While Queen Frederika was in London on a private visit she was the subject of certain unfortunate incidents. In these circumstances I think the House will feel that courtesy required the apology which was offered to her on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not nevertheless clear that the Government made an unholy mess of this? Did not anyone in the Government realise the strong feelings held by many people in Britain—including a hundred members of this House who have signed a Motion on the Order Paper—about political prisoners in Greece? Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the security of Royal visitors to Britain? Ought not the Foreign Secretary to have apologised for the incompetence of the Government's arrangements and not have appeared to apologise for the right of peaceful demonstration in Britain?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The normal arrangements were made. It is true, however, that a hitch can take place, as it did on this occasion.

Mr. Hamilton: Why was there such a delay—seven or eight days after a statement made by the Greek Royal Court—in issuing the apology? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the allegation that there was an attempt at the use of force by these demonstrators? Is he aware that the whole House would deplore any attempt to use force in these circumstances, but that if the Foreign Office has information to the effect that it was not contemplated then it behoves the Prime Minister to make a denial to this House?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it necessary for me to go into the precise character of these incidents. They took place when Queen Frederika was a guest

of our country and the demands of ordinary courtesy required that an apology should be made.

Mr. Foot: Even if the Foreign Secretary had made inquiries into the incidents before he issued his Note—which seems highly dubious—does not the Prime Minister think it most undignified that a Note of this character should be sent without insisting at the same time on the right of our people to protest aganist political oppression, particularly when the Greek Royal Family has been so shadily associated with this form of political activity?

The Prime Minister: The character of the question makes it hardly necessary for me to answer it. If a Royal guest comes here on a private visit and incidents of this kind unfortunately take place—and such incidents must not be exaggerated or under-estimated—I repeat that I think that most right hon. and hon. Members would feel it courteous to make an apology.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the conflict of testimony between Mrs. Ambatielos and the account issued by the Greek Embassy, will the Prime Minister arrange for an impartial inquiry into what took place? Will he not also explain to the Greek Government that these demonstrations took place because of strong indignation felt at the imprisonment of a man who helped this country in the war at the hands of the regime which includes all-in Nazis and supporters of Hitler?

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter affecting the ordinary courtesies to be shown to a Monarch when visiting this country. It is a very different question.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what concerns many of us is first of all that an apology was made before it was clear what had taken place, and that it is still not clear what took place? Is he further aware that the Government seem continually to expose themselves to a perfectly legitimate charge that they are too little concerned with the lack of democratic freedom in the countries of our allies? Should not the Government take more care to insist that our way of giving freedom of demonstration in Britain is the correct one?

The Prime Minister: That is a larger question which is not concerned with the courtesy due to a guest in our country.

Mr. Rankin: In connection with the incidents, does the Prime Minister realise that the only person who was arrested and charged was a boy of 16, who was exonerated by the magistrates, because he was only exercising his democratic right in exhibiting a poster? Does the Prime Minister further realise that it has not been possible to prefer any charge against Mrs. Ambatielos or any other person who took part in these incidents? Can the Prime Minister say what other reasons prompted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to send his apology to the Queen of Greece?

The Prime Minister: I think ordinary good manners.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Might I be granted the democratic right to hear the Prime Minister's reply to my Question?

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to repeat it, and the hon. Member would listen, we might obtain the right result.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked what motives prompted the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Rankin: I asked what other motives prompted him.

The Prime Minister: I replied, "Ordinary good manners".

Mr. Longbottom: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of shock that hon. Members feel that the Queen of Greece has been so severely molested by members of the Communist Party? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that these so-called political detainees are, in fact, criminals who have been convicted by the courts of Greece for the most atrocious acts of murder and torture?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I should like to be drawn into the underlying questions that arise. I know something of these matters, because I remember being besieged in the British Embassy for a period by the Communist Party during the Greek revolution of 1944. This is a different question. This lady was here on a private visit. Certain

incidents took place which, as I say, should be neither minimised nor exaggerated, and I think that it was courteous and proper to make an apology.

Sir H. Oakshott: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that his description of the tendering of this apology as good manners is exactly in keeping with our British habit of good manners? However much we may differ politically from the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), in similar circumstances we would tender her the same amends as have been offered to the Queen of Greece.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the fact that the Foreign Office and the Home Office have put out different accounts of this incident; since they cannot agree whether there was violence in this case or not; and since there is this disagreement, will the Prime Minister order an official inquiry so that we can discover the facts? We cannot have two Secretaries of State disagreeing about the facts. First, will the right hon. Gentleman do that?
Secondly, will he tell the House whether there was an official complaint to the Foreign Office by the Royal Court about this incident, or whether it came to light only as a result of statements by the Greek authorities to Greek journalists?
Thirdly, while I am sure that every Member of this House would deplore any violence or discourtesy to any guest of the Queen, or any other guest visiting this country, in any circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that part of the difficulty arises from the failure of his own Government, at diplomatic level, to express to the Greek Government the feelings of people in this country—[Interruption.]—I am asking the Government why they have not, at diplomatic level, protested to the Greek Government as fellow members of N.A.T.O. who are supposed to be jointly concerned in the defence of freedom from political imprisonment, and whether the Prime Minister has the moral standing to raise this case about the imprisonment of journalists for criticisms in the Press.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think that it is necessary to institute an inquiry, and I think that it would be unnecessary in view of the fact that I


regard the incident as closed. A certain incident took place which led to a disturbance and the Queen having to take refuge in a house nearby. That was unfortunate, and I think it right that an apology should be made.
The larger matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman are of a quite different character. They do not arise out of this issue, which is concerned entirely with the courtesy due to a visiting Queen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 6TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Bill.
TUESDAY, 7TH MAY—Motion to take note of the Report of the Tribunal on the Vassall Case (Command No. 2009).
Motions on the Civil Defence (Training in Nursing) Regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland.
WEDNESDAY, 8TH MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the National Health Service, for England, Wales and Scotland, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.
Progress with the remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY, 9TH MAY—Motion on the Report on the Royal Commission on Police, 1962 (Command No. 1728).
Completion of the remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
If there is time, Motions on the Tuberculosis (Extension of Payments Period) Regulations for England and Wales, and for Scotland.
FRIDAY, 10TH MAY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 13TH MAY—Proposed business will be: Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Civil Aviation, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.

Mr. H. Wilson: While the point that I want to put to the Leader of the House might be regarded as being related to the business of the House only with a certain degree of elasticity, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides, while understanding the reasons, and having deep sympathy with the motives for them, will have heard with great regret the decision which our oldest Parliamentarian, the Father of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), announced yesterday? While it would be inappropriate, and, I think, out of order, to follow this now, I am sure that the House, on an appropriate occasion, will want to express its views on this question.
On the business of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to be able to anounce the decision of the Government on the question of House of Lords reform, to which he referred at the end of the debate in March, and what the timetable is for enacting any decision which the Government may have reached?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the House will agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), and that hon. Members of all three political parties should recall with great pride that we have sat as Members with one of the country's greatest sons.
I tried to make the question of House of Lords reform clear in the discussions that we had. We shall make a statement some time this month. I said then, and the position remains, that legislation is possible, but that it was unlikely that it could be taken this Session. But we have given an undertaking that it will be in operation before the General Election.

Mr. W. Hamilton: A Ten Minutes Rule Bill.

Mr. Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that the business that he has announced for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday means that in each case important Scottish business will be taken after ten o'clock? Does not he think that this is rather hard on his hon. Friends? At least 100 of them will have to be kept


here on each occasion, just in case the Scots decide to teach the leader of the House a lesson?

Sir C. Osborne: Do not be so pompous.

Mr. Manuel: Who said that?

Mr. Ross: Would it not be far better, in the case of an important Measure like the Education (Scotland) Bill, to ensure that half a day was devoted to it? Equally, the Scottish Committee is meeting—and doing so to help him with his business—on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Surely this is rather unfair on the Scots, including his hon. Friends.

Mr. Macleod: The Fort William Bill passed through its entire Committee stage in two minutes.

Mr. Manuel: It might not now.

Mr. Macleod: I dare say. I am just relating what happened in the past. As for the Education (Scotland) Bill, it is precisely to meet the sort of point that the hon. Member has made that I have indicated—if he will study the exact words I used—that on Wednesday and Thursday we will try to meet the convenience of the House.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time in future to consider the sensible suggestion that Dr. Beeching should be appointed to consider the co-ordination between road and rail, to help solve the overall transport problem?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a business question.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. I am asking my right hon. Friend whether he will find time in the near future to discuss what I consider to be one of the most important questions facing us at present.

Mr. Speaker: The future of it sounded so remote as to be a matter of policy.

Mr. Brockway: A week ago the right hon. Gentleman said that the Home Secretary would be making a statement on the subject of the Public Order Act and the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill. Is the fact that the Home Secretary is sitting at the right hon. Gentleman's side an indication that he will do that today? If not, when will he do it?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question—when it became interrogative—is "No." But we will do this as soon as possible. It is a very complex matter. I hope that we can do it within a very short period. I give an absolute guarantee that we will do it before Whitsun. I hope that it will be done quite a bit before that.

Mr. H. Clark: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the House will be given an opportunity to discuss agriculture? He must be aware of the widespread concern about the long-term development of the industry.

Mr. Macleod: Yes, but if my hon. Friend will study the precedents, going back for ten years or more, he will find that these matters are almost invariably taken on Supply.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by 123 hon. and right hon. Members of both Opposition parties, protesting against the grave and cynical breach of treaties entered into and ratified by Britain and Greece?

[That this House, resolved to honour the solemn pledges, repeatedly given since 1945 by Great Britain and Greece, jointly to defend and promote democratic freedom and to challenge any denial of human liberty, asks Her Majesty's Government to urge the Government of Greece to grant now a general amnesty to the over-1,100 political prisoners, many of them veterans of the anti-Fascist resistance, including women, and many of whom, since their separation from their families and imprisonment up to 18 years ago, have reached an advanced age and are desperately ill in body and mind.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give time to discuss this matter, which has become one of vital interest to everybody who is concerned with the honour and decency of both countries? We have made this request before. Cannot he see that 123 hon. and right hon. Members, some of them very senior Members who themselves have been Ministers and have been concerned with these matters, are extremely anxious about this situation? responsible in various offices which are Will he provide time now, or in the near future?

Mr. Macleod: No, not in Government time.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week I asked him about possible facilities for the House to debate the question of civil defence, which we have neglected for many years, and also the implications of the Government's admission about regional seats of Government? I then got a rather negative reply. But did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister's Answers to Questions today, in which he appeared to admit that there was at present no Parliamentary authority to put these matters into operation, and that there would have to be such Parliamentary authority when the time came? In those circumstances, will he reconsider the answer that he gave last week, and promise that the House will have an early opportunity of considering these matters?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. But I will consider that question with all the other applications that are made. The House will realise that, the business up to Monday, 13th May, having been announced, and with the comparatively short run from then until Whitsun, under the procedure that we have the overwhelming number of those days are, quite frankly, bound to be taken up by the Finance Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Lipton: Reverting to the Motion on the subject of the amnesty of political prisoners, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be in the highest degree desirable to provide the House with an opportunity to discuss that Motion before we have any other visits to this country from Greek royalty?

Mr. Macleod: The matter was dealt with a few moments ago. I have nothing to add to the answer then given.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide a day in Government time to discuss the 10-year plan of the health and welfare services of local authorities, recently published by the Ministry of Health? In case he intends to mention Wednesday of next week, may I ask him if he recalls that this is a Supply day, and that the Opposition will require to discuss critically other aspects of the Health Service?

Mr. Macleod: That is an extremely defensive way of putting it. I will consider that, together with the other applications, but if the Opposition really want to discuss health and welfare they can put down the appropriate Votes on Wednesday. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be delighted to reply.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his intention to bring on the Education (Scotland) Bill after ten o'clock on Wednesday night? I make no complaint about the Fort William Pulp and Paper Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that during this Session no time has been wasted on any Scottish Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Leader of the House is not challenging me. I ask him to appreciate that this Bill is important, and that we strongly object to its being brought on for discussion after ten o'clock at night.

Mr. Macleod: On the Report stage there are three Government Amendments, and I believe that each is designed to meet points raised by the Opposition in Committee. In answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I have already made it clear that in putting down the Bill for Wednesday and Thursday we would try to meet—as far as we could—the convenience of the House.

Mr. Hilton: Will the Leader of the House seriously reconsider the reply he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) about a debate on agriculture? It may be true that in past years a Supply day has been used for this purpose, but have we really come to the time when only the Opposition are sufficiently interested in the most important industry of agriculture to provide time for a debate on it? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread concern among farmers all over the country—so much so that in recent weeks they have marched to Westminster in protest? Will not he reconsider his decision, and allow Government time to debate this matter?

Mr. Macleod: In reply to the question raised by my hon. Friend, I was recalling the precedents of the House. The hon. Member knows that what I said on this


subject is accurate, because he is familiar with the situation. This is what has happened for many years past. As for the provision of Government time, I must rest on the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Anybody who adds the sum up can virtually tell how the days will be allocated between now and Whitsun.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the scope of the debate which is to take place next Wednesday. As recently published by the Government, the local health authority 10-year plan is very comprehensive. At the same time, we have the Kindersley Report on pay, and there is a considerable amount of material about nursing and the whole question of the general practitioner service. In addition, the Scottish Health Service is to be lumped into this debate. Will he consider the possibility of the Government providing time to discuss their own plan for local health and welfare services?

Mr. Macleod: I understand that claim. But if the Opposition want a wide debate they can arrange it by putting down the appropriate Votes for Wednesday. If they want a narrow debate—as I understand they might—to concentrate on a certain point, I will consider, but only in competition with other claimants, the point of view that has been advanced.

Mr. Snow: After the somewhat mixed reception given to the Beeching plan, is it the intention of the Government to provide a further opportunity for discussing it in the light of possible forthcoming events, and also in view of the rather unsatisfactory planning aspects which became apparent during this week's debate?

Mr. Macleod: I have no plans for a further transport debate.

Dr. King: Is the Leader of the House able to tell us when he contemplates having a debate on the Rochdale Report?

Mr. Macleod: We are to have one. I was asked last week to try to be more precise about that. I said it seemed clear that it could not be until after Whit-sun. The hon. Member will realise that

in a normal year it is the period after Whitsun that gives most scope for debates of this sort.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) raised with me a complaint of a breach of Privilege founded on an article in the Daily Express of yesterday.
I have, naturally, given the most careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's complaint in the light of precedent and other guidance available to me. Having regard to the conclusion which I have reached, I do not think it is desirable that I should say anything about the article. The conclusion that I have reached is that the hon. Gentleman's complaint does not raise, prima facie, a case of breach of Privilege of this House.
As the House knows, what I now say has no effect at all in relation to an opportunity for the House to consider the matter, should it so desire, on an appropriate Motion. It merely means that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman's complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Bowles: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having considered that matter carefully, as I have no doubt that you have done. I must say that I am very surprised at your decision. But I can understand your natural sensitiveness, being so closely involved in this matter yourself.
May I refer you, Sir, to Erskine May, 16th Edition, page 124, where, under the heading "Reflections upon Members", it is stated:
Analogous to molestation of Members on account of their behaviour in Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as Members. On 26th February, 1701, the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish any libels reflecting upon any member of the House for or relating to his service therein, was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House.
'Written imputations, as affecting a Member of Parliament, may amount to breach of privilege, without, perhaps, being libels at common law' … but to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a Member must concern the character or conduct of the Member in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to show any sign of discourtesy. But I am sure that he will give me the credit of understanding that one of the books which I have looked at is the modern edition of Erskine May. My difficulty is this. The effect of my Ruling that there is no prima facie case of breach of Privilege means that I ought not to allow the matter to be discussed now.

Mr. Bowles: With great respect, Sir, surely, although perhaps the precedents are binding on you, there is no objection to the House setting another precedent——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great objection to discussing it now. I am not putting any difficulty in the way of the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to put down a Motion forthwith, the matter could be decided by the House, if that is desired. But I do not know of any principle on which I can allow—even with great respect to the hon. Member and his care about it—the matter to be discussed now.

Mr. Bowles: Then may I give notice that I shall put down a Motion?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1963–64

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the following services connected with Housing and Local Government in England and Wales, namely:


CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1963–64



£


Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government
10


Class VI, Vote 3, Housing, England and Wales
10


Class VI, Vote 5, General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
10


Class VI, Vote 7, Rate Deficiency, &amp;c., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
10


Class VI, Vote 9, Ministry of Education
10


Total
£50

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3.56 p.m.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): This debate takes place today in the context of the vast construction programme upon which the nation and the Government have embarked. I do not think that anyone will dispute the size of the problem that we have set out to solve. For both social and economic reasons we have to meet an enormous and, indeed, almost unlimited requirement to build new houses, new schools, new hospitals—even new prisons—offices, factories and other modern buildings.
During the current year public investment in new construction of every kind will be about £1,200 million. This is an increase of over 10 per cent. on last year and this figure will rise still further in the years immediately ahead in the light of the programme which we have already announced and to which we are committed. In March, my right hon. Friend


the Minister of Education announced the progress made in his five-year £300 million school building programme which was first announced in 1958 and which is now one quarter completed. Under this programme it is also expected that about 400 new schools will be completed in this year, quite apart from about £200 million worth of improvement to existing schools which is now in the pipeline.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is going ahead with a 10-year hospital plan that will cost about £800 million. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is making demands on the construction industry with his ambitious road programme. We aim to go ahead in these and other spheres and, at the same time, to carry forward with particular vigour the immense housing and slum clearance policies which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is developing.

Sir James Duncan: Are these United Kingdom figures? Do they include Scotland?

Mr. Rippon: They are the figures for the total public investment programme for the United Kingdom.
The number of new dwellings completed in Great Britain in 1962 was over 305,000, the highest number since 1955. Over 130,000 houses were completed by local authorities compared with 118,000 the year before. The increase in 1962 paved the way for a further advance. At the beginning of this year it was estimated that tender approvals for local authorities and new towns in England and Wales would show an increase of 6 per cent. over last year, while private enterprise housing was expected to rise by about 10 per cent. I think that it is fair to say that the severe weather from which we suffered at the beginning of the year might mean that we get set back in completions during this calendar year, but the trend is rising and it is clear and it is definite.
At the same time, the rate of slum clearance has risen steadily since 1955 and is still rising. As hon. Members know, many of the worst slums are concentrated in the older industrial areas, particularly in the Midlands and the North. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has

scheduled 38 local authorities as candidates for special help in stepping up slum clearance programmes. I am sure that the House will welcome the information that these 38 expect an increase of more than 100 per cent. over their average output for the past three years, thus reaching an average of 34,000 houses a year. Many of the authorities in the North will more than double, and in some cases treble, their 1960–62 average rate of building.

Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend has twice referred to the North. Is he to publish the names of the local authorities, which would be very helpful in enabling us to judge how the matter is being handled?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, it will be published as soon as the plans are completed.
As all this gathers momentum, the demands made upon every section of the construction industries, which already account for about half the country's investment, will rise steadily. The actual rate of progress will be limited solely by our ability to pay for it and by the physical availability of resources, including land and labour, and our capacity to make the best use of them. Clearly, the availability of land is an essential precondition of any building programme. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend already has the matter under close examination in the areas of greatest need. Regional surveys are being undertaken by the Government which will go fully into this problem. As a result of these surveys, as is well known, new towns have already been proposed for Birmingham and Liverpool and another, for Manchester, is under consideration.
As for money, the growth of the programme speaks for itself. We are making great efforts to ensure that the finance is available. I know that the general level of interest rates must always be a matter of some concern, but the rising level of building by public authorities demonstrates that this is not really holding up essential housing work. If the subsidies are properly applied over the whole range and sensible rent policies are pursued, there is no fundamental reason why for housing authorities generally finance should form an insuperable obstacle. My right hon. Friend has made it per-


fectly clear that subsidies can, and indeed will, be reviewed as the situation demands, which is what we have already done from time to time.
Sometimes it is argued that there should be some special low rate of interest for housing. I suppose that a similar case could be made for schools, hospitals and many other forms of public and indeed private building. What we would have to face is that there would be a differential interest rate applied over about three-quarters of the field, and I do not believe that the Opposition would press that seriously.
There is very little prospect that the construction industries will be able to call upon substantially greater manpower. The manpower problem is both quantitative and qualitative. We have to assess the skills needed and then recruit and train for them. The White Paper on Industrial Training, published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, points the way here and so do the block release courses for apprentices which have been sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.
But, fundamentally, further increases in output, which is what we are all trying to seek, will have to be achieved by still greater productivity and by new methods. I know that the construction industries and all associated with them will respond enthusiastically. There are a great many exciting developments now taking place, and I hope to tell the House something about them this afternoon.
Modern industry demands a continuous response to advances in science and technology and constant improvements in the techniques of production and management. I am bound to say that the construction industries are not as advanced as many others. I do not wish to imply that they have a bad record. On the contrary, between 1954 and 1962 their total output rose by nearly 30 per cent. During the same period, total output on new work rose by nearly 45 per cent. The fact is that most of this increase was due to increased productivity and represents a considerable achievement.
The point I want to emphasise this afternoon is that the progress in increasing output which has been made so far has been achieved without any major change in the characteristic methods of

work of the construction industries. If those methods of work could be transformed, we might get increases of output which at this moment would appear to be almost miraculous. What is needed is something of the nature of an industrial revolution in building, with all that that implies in the scale of production, mechanisation and techniques of management.
One of the chief ways in which traditional building can be improved is by the introduction of better management methods in handling the whole building process. This was a subject to which Sir Harold Emmerson, in his report on the construction industries last year, paid a great deal of attention. He noted how efficiency in building depended upon the quality of the relationships between the client, his professional advisers and the builder. He rightly laid great stress on the need to improve communication between them. The value of the best techniques which we are now developing can easily be lost if all the processes associated with them are slow and cumbersome. We need these better procedures to enable each partner in the building process to play his full part and to play it at the right time.
This is increasingly recognised by the industry itself and I am glad to say that the National Joint Consultative Committee of architects, surveyors and builders has decided to commission an important study of communications in the building industry. My own Directorate-General of Research and Development will be associated with this work and with other work designed to improve management; for instance, by extending the use of cost limits and of cost planning and by improving contract procedures. There is great scope here for increasing productivity by modernising the way in which the building process is carried out, from the statement of the client's requirement right up to the completion of the contract.
What has come to be called industrialised building—and there has been a lot of talk about it recently—does not just mean what is called system-building or prefabrication, and it certainly does not foreshadow the end of ail traditional building. The truth is that one cannot draw a sharp distinction between


industrialised building and what has been described as the rationalisation of traditional building. The two blur into each other. Industrialised building has been well defined as simply the application of power and machinery and mass production to as many building processes as can sensibly be changed in this direction.
The industrial revolution in the construction industries must be carried through primarily by these industries themselves, by the employers and the operatives who man them, and not least by the various associated professions. The Government cannot foist progress on a great industry, but they can create conditions in which that progress can be stimulated, and that is one of the principal functions of the Ministry of Public Building and Works as now constituted. What is new, therefore, is not the industrialisation of building, but the speed with which it can now go forward in response to the demands which have to be met.
If we are to keep up the pace as we want to, we must succeed in meeting two prerequisites of modern industrial methods. First, we must reduce the present unnecessary, and I think quite meaningless, variety in the dimensions of building components and introduce intelligent standardisation. Secondly, we must secure the co-ordination of demand so as to provide a large and continuous stream of orders and make possible large-scale production and long runs in the assembly process.
I believe that we are beginning to make significant progress in both these directions. To promote greater standardisation, I published last February a first statement on dimensional co-ordination. This will be followed by others. I am sure that dimensional co-ordination is the essential first step towards standardisation of components and the reduction of cutting and fitting work on the site. Although the work now proceeding is mainly related in the first instance to industrialised methods of building, it should also lead later to reduction in the variety of components for traditional building.
In this work my new Director-General of Research and Development has a leading part to play. His organisation has a general responsibility, first, for co-ordinating and extending the activities

of the building research and development groups throughout the Government services, secondly, for encouraging and developing generally the use of new and rapid methods of construction, and, thirdly, for standardising the use and production of building components to the greatest possible extent. In all this we act in close association with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's development group hi promoting these new developments. During the summer we shall be issuing a bulletin on preferred dimensions for housing.
If I may refer to the continuity of orders, I think that it will be known that my right hon. Friend has told the local authorities concerned in the North that they can build as many houses as they can manage, in order to speed up slum clearance. He has accordingly approved programmes for four to six years ahead. This must help enormously in planning programmes of construction. He has also set up a northern office of his Ministry in Manchester, whose objective is to do everything possible to help to secure the increased production of houses and especially the replacement of slums.
This office was set up at the end of last year. It comprises administrative and professional staff and they are helping local authorities with advice on the spot. They are also encouraging these very important local authorities to group together to co-ordinate their programmes. It will also be of interest to the House to know that my right hon. Friend is planning to set up a similar office in Newcastle.

Mr. Charles Mapp: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming about the administrative staff in Manchester? Will he tell us the numbers of the staff in relation to the great housing problems in the North?

Mr. Rippon: I shall get the details later and my right hon. Friend will give the figures. I do not know the precise numbers, but there are a great many people helping in this work. My regional office in Manchester is also co-operating with my right hon. Friend's office.
Co-ordination of demand must take place not only in relation to traditional building, but, perhaps even more important, in relation to industrialised building. If building teams are disbanded it is very


difficult to get them together again. This was admirably brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in the speech that he was able to make in the very short debate that we had last Friday on the construction industry. He particularly, and rightly, emphasised the need for co-ordination and continuity in the house building programmes of smaller as well as larger authorities. We must have this continuity of orders before builders and manufacturers of components can invest with confidence in factories, plant and equipment.
There is no doubt today that a large part of the demand we make upon the construction industries IS entirely uncoordinated. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's action in promoting consortia of the larger housing authorities will reduce the extent of this problem. My right hon. Friend has already held a series of meetings with local authority and private architects and with a number of the larger contractors mainly in the context of the drive on slums which he is carrying out, and on the conditions which are needed for the successful introduction of industrialised systems for both houses and flats.
I think that we have received from these discussions valuable information about requirements, capacity and availability. The local authorities are now doing a great deal to help this by creating large and stable programmes. I hope that they will do even more. I hope particularly that they will consider taking advantage of the possibilities there are for using spare capacity in shipyards. The inquiry centres which I have just set up will help in every way they can to bring together the shipyards, the building firms and prospective clients and to give technical advice. As I told the House on Tuesday, the skill is there in the shipyards, but the success of anything which can be achieved will depend on whether we can solve the problem of design, price and marketing. For that it is necessary to have collaboration and to keep all the parties together.
There will still remain a large pool of demand for building which could with advantage be co-ordinated. I am now embarking on a series of exploratory talks, not only with the building industry and associated professions, but also with local authority associations and

groups of local authorities responsible for introducing industrialised building systems, to find how we can further co-ordinate the demand.
What is needed is a method of bringging together the building requirements of a large number of public agencies and even private building owners so that they may be collated into programmes for industrialised building extending to one, two or even three years ahead.

Mr. Paul Williams: My right hon. Friend has spoken about industrialised building in shipyards. Surely the key factor, in shipyards or elsewhere, is the cost, whether it industrialised building or building by ordinary processes. It will be of little benefit to the nation if there is an increased cost of 10 per cent., 12 per cent., or 15 per cent. Is there any indication of the cost of industrialised building compared with other methods?

Mr. Rippon: As I have said, we shall have to see whether there is capacity which can be used for building to any extent, but the point is that industrialised systems might be made fully competitive if there are large and continuing orders.
I shall try to give some examples of systems which have been developed and which are showing that they can be competitive. The talks I have been having are wholly exploratory. I have already asked my National Consultative Council for the construction industries to let me have their suggestions, and I shall welcome suggestions from other quarters. One possibility would be the establishment of clearing houses of some sort for building orders which would also give advice to prospective clients about the potentialities of industrialised building and the design factors involved. Other possibilities may well emerge in the course of the talks.
One feature is already encouraging. That is the growing use in the building industry of mechanisation, dry construction and factory methods of component manufacture, which is now being widely accepted as essential far the greater productivity which we seek. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that there are a number of promising projects which have been developed. The first, and perhaps best known, is the C.L.A.S.P.


system, designed particularly for school buildings, It has shown how good design can be combined with these new methods.
It is a system of construction using a light steel frame and a wide variety of other factory-made components. C.L.A.S.P. schools are being built in about half the time needed for traditional construction. The standard of finish and the teaching area per place provided in C.L.A.S.P. schools is appreciably above the national average. This is a field in which we can fairly claim that we are leading the world.
My Ministry is now developing the Nenk method of building, which applies the principles worked out in C.L.A.S.P. to a much wider range of building types. This work, which was begun in the War Office, is an important advance in flexibility of design and incorporates a number of new structural features.

Mr. John M. Temple: My right hon. Friend has brought in a new jargon, the Nenk system. Will he explain exactly what it means?

Mr. Rippon: It is named in honour of the gentleman who was concerned with its progress. The construction of these Nenk buildings has now begun and I look forward to the steady development of this system. I hope very much that it will prove of value in the construction of houses in due course.
My right hon. Friend and I are receiving a flood of inquiries about industrialised building, not only from local authorities but from building firms, building component manufacturers and many other industries which would like to diversify. We hope shortly to make some arrangements for the provision of an advisory service for industry generally. This will be a joint arrangement between our two Departments, and each will make its own contribution from its official expertise. In this way, I think that we shall be able to accelerate some of the new processes and use manufacturing capacity and skills of different kinds.
Meanwhile, on the initiative of my right hon. Friend, the Yorkshire development group of three large housing authorities, Sheffield, Hull and Leeds, are co-operating in the development of another system for industralised house

building known—to add to the jargon—as the 5M system. I have had great difficulty, also, in translating that. The title derives from the dimensions which are employed. Basically, this system has been derived from the C.L.A.S.P. system and adapted to suit the needs of two and three-storey houses. It is of light steel and timber frame construction with plenty of other factory-made components which are assembled on the site. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South will be pleased to know that, so far, developments of this 5M system show that it will be competitive in cost with the traditional methods of housing.
I have announced that I intended to use the Government's power as client to encourage the introduction of new methods wherever possible. As this is developing so well, we intend to build a number of Service houses by this system. So far, it has been arranged for 370 married quarters for soldiers at Catterick to be built by this system in 1963–64, and I am considering whether we can provide additional houses of this type in the programme elsewhere.
I have spoken of the need for an industrial revolution in building. I do not think that this can be achieved without a much more intensive research and development programme. I estimate the annual expenditure in the building industry as a whole on research and development at £3 million. Of this sum, Government expenditure on research alone amounts to £1·2 million. I think that that figure leads not only me, but everyone else, to two conclusions. The first is that the level of research is far too low. It represents only about one-thirteenth of the national average for industry on a net output basis.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Would my right hon. Friend say how that figure is derived, and where the information is obtained from?

Mr. Rippon: This is a summary of the figures that I have been able to get. I shall send my hon. Friend the detailed breakdown and analysis of the statistical basis of that figure. I think that it shows that there must be a great increase, however we build up the statistics, in the industry's share of the research effort and that the industries concerned fully appreciate it. I am having the whole field


of building research reviewed, and I am concerned to see that we do very much more to disseminate technical information. Quite apart from the total we spend on research, there is clear evidence that it takes far too long to seep down and be absorbed into practice.
I have said that it is the business of the Government to try to create the conditions in which the building industry could modernise and increase its output still further. There are, I think, two other ways, in addition to those that I have already dealt with, in which the Government can help and will help. First, the Government can provide the right kind of statutory regulations for building practice, and, secondly, they can help maintain the necessary economic conditions.
As regards the statutory conditions, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I are working together on the preparation of central building regulations in place of the present locally-made byelaws. We want to create regulations which are simple to understand and to administer, and which do not inhibit the best modern practice. Above all, as I am sure everyone will agree, the Government have a vital part to play in maintaining confidence in a steady and expanding programme which will give continuity of employment and justify the capital expenditure which is needed for modernisation.
We are determined, so far as lies in our power, that the load of work placed upon the construction industries will stretch them to the utmost, but will not overload them. I do not think that anyone now doubs that all the evidence has shown that if we overload the construction industries, we reduce rather than increase productivity.

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has a definite time in view when the hundreds and thousands of people in this country will have bathrooms and, indeed, other ordinary facilities? Never mind so much about research; will the right hon. Gentleman come down to earth on that point and tell us when he intends to bring that desirable state about?

Mr. Rippon: About 400 houses a week are being provided with baths and my right hon. Friend intends to double that number.
Taking the genuine progress that we are making, the limit on that progress is imposed ultimately by the efficiency of the construction industries and our ability to introduce these modern methods. To achieve this continuity of work, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I have set up machinery to keep the prospective load of the construction industries under constant review. I have also set up an Economic Intelligence Unit to keep immediately abreast of trends in the construction industries, not only nationally but regionally, in association with the National Consultative Council for the construction industries and my regional advisory committees.
These are representative of both sides of the industry and of the associated professions. They know the size of the problem and they are working towards solving it. We do not solve it simply by saying what we are doing already or by pointing out the size of the problem which still needs to be carried out. We can solve it only by adopting these new methods.
Perhaps I might sum up in these words: I think that the Government's record on housing, schools, roads and other building is good. The construction industries' record in increasing output and productivity is also good. But I would not wish in any way to suggest that we do not need to do very much more to enable and to ensure that the construction industries modernise their character, their outlook and their methods in quite a radical and, indeed, a revolutionary fashion.
In this, as I have tried to explain, I believe that the Government are helping and will continue to help. We will match in every way the willingness of the industry to experiment with new techniques and with the use of new materials and new management practice. It is only in this way, I believe, that we can achieve between us the substantial and continuing increase in productivity which alone will enable us to speed up our efforts to meet the needs of the nation in housing and other matters.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It is always a pleasure to see and hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Public Building and Works, even when the Votes which are put down for the Committee's consideration are not the Votes of his Ministry.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us a remarkable lecture on the possibilities of industrialised building. I will not dispute the importance of that subject, but I think that he seriously underrated the significance of the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones), because it is no good pretending to people that for a very considerable time to come industrialised building will be a solution of the major part of the housing and building problem.
It is beginning to make changes in techniques, and, of course, this is a vitally important task in the sense that the Government must not fail in their duty to see that this change in technique is properly developed and encouraged. But we know very well that, even on the most optimistic assumptions, this will not revolutionise the output of the construction industries in a very short time, and in the meantime there remain acute problems of school shortage, of housing shortage, and of ill-repaired dwellings which are the concern of the Ministers whose Votes we have put down for discussion today.
I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we put those Votes down because we feel that the Government's policy in these matters has failed properly to take into account the impact which the local government services have on the social life and the quality of our civilisation. We also believe that it fails to take into account the changes which are occurring and the further changes which are needed in the economy at present, and that it fails to take into account the great anxiety felt by ratepayers about the whole problem of local government finance.
It seems to me a curious handling by the Government of a debate, which, to judge by the Votes put down, would clearly range over all these matters, for them not to give us some idea of the Government's views at an early stage in the debate.
I want, first, to take that local authority service which bulks largest in people's minds—housing. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the increase in the public provision of houses. He was arguing that they could not be subjected to any serious financial or other shackles otherwise they would have not made the advances which they have made. Let us look at what has been happening. During the past year—and we speak of England and Wales throughout the debate—they completed about 110,000 dwellings. That is only a little over half the number they were completing nine years ago.
During most of those nine years there has not been an increase in the public provision of housing; there has been a decrease. It is only in the last few years that the trend has been in the other direction, and so far it has travelled only a very short distance in that direction. The Minister cannot defend his proposition that public housing has not been held back. There is not a satisfactory rate of increase in this field. It is disquieting to find from the document which has been made available to us most recently that completions in the first quarter of this year are nearly 20,000 fewer than in the first quarter of last year.

Mr. Graham Page: What about the weather?

Mr. Stewart: Unlike hon. Members opposite in 1947, I do not hold the Government responsible for the weather, but I draw attention to the fact that it will mean a determined effort to pick up in the remaining nine months of the year if we are not to have a worse figure at the end of the year. It is quite right to draw attention to that, in view of the rather placid assumption of the Minister of Public Building and Works which gave us the impression that there has been a steady increase in the provision of public housing.
It becomes more serious when we set the figure of 110,000 against what is undoubtedly needed. I do not believe that it can be disputed that we ought to get the rate of council housing up to 200,000 a year as rapidly as we can, and that if we do not, then we cannot hope at any measurable date in the future to get rid of the slums or to see that every family has a decent home. If we do not get up to something like that rate, we shall go on as we are now, not demolishing


the slums as fast as the mere passage of time is creating new slums.
That is the situation in pure quantity in the public building of houses. What are the effects of this inadequacy? They can be seen in the numbers and experience of the homeless, in the housing lists of the local authorities, in the problem of rents, in the unsatisfactory progress of the slum clearance campaign and in the question of houses in disrepair and houses not up to date. It is a long list of formidable deficiencies in the present housing policy. It is difficult to reconcile those deficiencies with the placid approach to the subject of the Minister today.
Let me illustrate those five effects of the inadequacy of the provision of public housing. First, there are 5,000 homeless persons in London alone and a similar figure, proportionate to the population, to be found, I am informed, in Birmingham. The position is similar in many other big cities. From the joint pressure of housing shortage and the Rent Act, or from accident or misfortune, people are left without a home and have to shift after a short time from one lodging to another until they end in some local authority hostel. I wonder whether this is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he used the phrase that Britain was on the move.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I am glad to say that that figure is on the move in the right direction. The hon. Member is several months out of date. The figure has been substantially reduced.

Mr. Stewart: Is it 4,000? I am relieved to hear of the reduction, but the Minister will appreciate that it is extremely cold comfort and that it does not indicate any real change in the underlying nature of the problem.
Secondly, the problem is illustrated by the state of the housing lists. In the City of Leeds there are 18,000 people on the housing list and the average time they have been waiting on it is eight years. In Birmingham, the list has on it 45,000 people and the average time they have been waiting on it is ten years. These are only two examples of many which one could quote.
It is no good at all trying to put the blame for this at the door of the local authorities, because it is only quite recently that, even in the North, the local authorities have been allowed to build as much as some of them wish to build. Further, they have been held back all the time by the difficulties of land, of labour shortage and of interest rates. Over a great part of the country they are still held back by simply being told by the Minister what is the maximum number they may build.
That gives us the kind of result which was illustrated in the Adjournment debate last night, in which the Parliamentary Secretary defended a planning decision taken by the Minister against his inspector's recommendation, against the judgment of Kent County Council and against the judgment of Dartford Rural Council—a decision which would increase the pressure on commuter traffic and endanger the amenities of some of the most beautiful villages to be found at that distance from London.
All this was to be done on the ground that private enterprise could go ahead and build in this spot now but the local authority could not. The basic fact underneath that was that that local authority had always built up to the maximum the Minister had allowed it and, if it had been allowed to do more, it would have done it in the past and would probably have already tackled this piece of land. That illustrates the limitations under which the local authorities work.
The third effect of inadequacy is shown in the level of rents. The Minister will be familiar with the research conducted by the Family Services Unit recently. The unit made inquiries in all parts of Greater London. It came back with two examples only of accommodation available at a rent or not more than four guineas a week. There are an enormous number of people in need of housing. To them, accommodation at four guineas a week is a complete irrelevance, yet only two examples were found by the Family Services Unit investigators where the rents were as low as that.
The Government must realise that all their prophesies about how the Rent Act would work out have been falsified. The present Home Secretary expressed the view that uncontrolled rents would rise


to about two-and-a-half times the gross value. That has proved laughably inadequate. The present Minister of Housing and Local Government in a previous incarnation expressed the view that it would bring about the solution of the housing shortage in London in a measurable time. That was an almost equally fantastic prophecy. We were told time and time again that it would bring more rented accommodation on to the market. The Minister himself does not even defend it now. His last version of this story was that at least it prevents rented accommodation going off the market as fast as it used to. That is a far cry from the claims that were made for the Rent Act.
The plain fact is that allowing a supposed free market in rents has created an enormous amount of hardship and has practically no bearing on the problem of providing accommodation at rents that most people can afford. The Minister may be interested to know that the Borough Council of Chelsea, whose politics I am sure he will regard as impeccable, after discussing this matter earnestly, decided that it would approach the Minister with a request that he should introduce legislation to provide that any tenant who had been in occupation of the premises for three years or more should have a right to the continuation of his tenancy at a reasonable rent, unless the landlord could prove certain special, listed circumstances to the satisfaction of the county court. Things have gone far if the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Chelsea has become doubtful of the wisdom of Government policy.
Then there is the effect of our inadequate building programme on slum clearance. There are still officially about ¾ million slums. The weakness of the official figures is that it was never compiled with relation to any one uniform definition of what a slum was. In the estimates of some people, not malicious critics of the Government, but people interested in the building industry, we ought to put the figure of dwellings which should be so classed at nearer 3 million than ¾ million. Whatever figure one takes, what is actually happening? The Minister gave the impression that the slum clearance programme was sweeping on. Actually, 500 more slums were cleared in 1962 than in 1961. Even if that rate of increase is maintained for

a great many years, we shall not reach a rate at which we can hope to demolish slums faster than time is creating them.
Then there is the effect of the inadequacy of the national policies on the condition of old houses. We should know a little more about this if the office that is concerned with the census were a little better equipped. I understand that this office, whose job it is to tell the nation all the political, social and economic implications of the census, will be able to install its first electronic computer next month. This is a small example of the way in which under this Government public work always seems to lag behind in necessary equipment in comparison with similar work in the private sector of industry. Consequently, it will be 1965 and not 1964, as was hoped, before we get the full report of the last census.
From what they have already been able to tell us about London, we can see the position there with regard to houses not up to date or in adequate repair. Two-fifths of London's dwellings have no separate hot water supply of their own. There are comparable figures all round the country in the great cities of the number of houses without proper hot water supply, without baths, without proper or modern forms of sanitation.
Here again, the Minister gave the impression that all was going well in this field. Surely he knows, even though it is not his Ministry, that the number of improvements and conversions done in 1962 was 18,000 down on what was done in 1961. We are not moving in the right direction here. We are moving in the wrong direction.
The last effect I want to mention of the inadequacy of our building of houses is its effect on industrial mobility. It is this which I had in mind when I said at the beginning that the Government's policies failed to take into account the changes which are occurring and which are needed in our economy. We have the benefit nowadays of the N.E.D.C., which has recently produced its second Report. The Council pinpoints labour mobility as one of the chief requirements for a faster rate of economic growth and a more efficient economy. Indeed, I only wonder why one needs all the ponderousness of the N.E.D.C.


to arrive at that fairly obvious conclusion.
The N.E.D.C. goes on to tell us that it would be much easier for people to move if there were not such a shortage of houses. There also the N.E.D.C. will carry with it most people who study the problem for five minutes. The N.E.D.C. goes on to say:
Workers are usually unwilling to move to other areas if this means losing priority on housing lists or giving up a council house or rent controlled accommodation"—
the effects of the Rent Act again.
Local authorities also find it difficult to provide housing accommodation for incoming workers when they have waiting lists of their own residents for houses.
This means that housing must be looked at as something more than a social service. It is a contributor to the productive power of the economy as well. I think that one must link that with the main theme of the Minister's speech—industrialised building. I link it this way. I do not think that there is any sense in politicians trying to give the House feeble technological lectures about how to build a house by new methods, unless the politician in question happens to be a builder, in which case he may have something useful to say. The job of the politician is to find out what changes in law and administration are required so that the new techniques which have been discovered can be set free and produce their results. That is the political job.
It stands out, I think, that, in particular, the thing the politician has to do is to get greater standardisation of building orders so that the building industry can be given large orders and so that a steady, and if possible, an expanding, demand on the building industry can be maintained. The building industry is, therefore, capable of being a cause of economic growth by helping greater mobility. For that reason, it ought to be looked at with special favour by the Government. Further, if it is not looked on with special favour, if we do not say to the building industry, "Government policy will be such as to give you at least a steady, and possibly an expanding, flow of demand", the most economic methods of building cannot be introduced. I am glad to carry the Minister with me thus far, but what follows from that? It is

that the building industry must not be made subject to every fluctuation in the Bank Rate.
We have been arguing about interest rates for a long time and have been pointing out that one of the reasons for the fall in the demand of local authorities for building has been the strain of higher interest rates. As a result of our arguing we have been told by the Government that it would be wrong to shelter the building industry from the general fortunes of the economy.
Does not the Minister of Public Building and Works see that it follows from everything he was saying earlier that to shelter it from the vagaries of the economy, at least to some extent, is just what he must do if he wants new methods of building? The Government must be prepared to say to the building industry, "We are determined that there shall be continuity and when the economy is hit from some unexpected source you will not be expected to take your chance along with everything else and you will be given a special, protected position." That is the inevitable logic of the matter.
The Government must be prepared to do that, both to enable the building industry to use new methods to the full and because if building is kept up the Government will promote that mobility of labour which is a source of economic growth in the future.

Mr. Hocking: Does the hon. Member realise that fluctuations in interest rates do not have quite the same effect on the building industry as on most others simply because the average building contract is based over a fairly long period, the average contractor keeps his work in progress up to a fair length, and that unless the interest rates change or fluctuate very quickly the effect of them on the amount of work in progress is not nearly as great as he would have the Committee believe?

Mr. Stewart: I suggest that the hon. Member thinks more of the position of the local authorities, for it is with them and with their building difficulties that we are chiefly concerned. They find that a house which they could build and pay for ten years ago—costing £4,000—now costs £9,000; and seven-eighths of that increase is due to higher interest rates. Put that against the fact that their orders


have been shrinking over most of the last eight years and there can be no doubt as to the conclusion one must reach.
However, it is not only a question of interest rates, for this also concerns the general stop-go policy of the Government.

Mr. Rippon: I am interested in the hon. Member's argument about interest rates. I touched on this subject. If there is to be a special, protected position for the construction industries, which account for half of the investment programme, over what parts of the public sector would he suggest we have special rates of interest; and could that not also be applied to the private sector?

Mr. Stewart: The Government must obviously begin with those which have a claim both on the grounds that have been mentioned—those concerned with the building industry—and those of great social importance as well.

Mr. Rippon: Would that include housing, education, roads, prisons and all the rest?

Mr. Stewart: Those particularly concerned with housing and education. One can do this either as a pure financial operation, differentiating the rates of interest, or by varying one's subsidy policy to the local authorities so that the burden of any changes that may be necessary in the rate of interest does not fall on them. But, one way or another, the Government must do it, and that, repeatedly, is what they have refused to do. As I was saying, it is not only a question of interest rates.

Sir K. Joseph: Have rents nothing to do with this; and the resources which local authorities draw from rents?

Mr. Stewart: But for the wages people earn there is no connection with the rents they can pay. Part of the subsidy policy problem is that it does not discriminate between one local authority and another according to the wealth and rent-paying capacity of its citizens. That is why the Government's housing problem lags in some cities.
Nevertheless, I said that it was not only a question of interest rates but also the general stop-go policy of the Government. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education

in his place. He has recently told the local authorities that they can start school building programmes to the extent to about one-third of what they asked for. It is no good his saying, "They know that they always ask for more than they finally get" because a great many of them this year were at great pains to try to see that their demands were severely realistic so that, in a way, there is more disquiet at the fact that they are not being given all they asked for.
Up to a point, the Government can defend that position. But the local authorities are being allowed to start £10 million worth less in the coming year than they started in the previous year. The Government cannot reconcile that kind of policy with a desire to keep a steady flow of orders in the building industry. That is why my hon. Friends and I say that the Government's whole approach to this problem has failed. When the Government fail on major things they always produce a bright new device in one of the minor yet hopeful sections of the problem. The proposal for the production of building components for shipbuilding yards is obviously not going to be the solution to half of our housing problem; it is, nonetheless, a useful, if limited, contribution.
To what does the Report draw attention? Attention is drawn to the fact that the section of housing endeavour which could get some advantage from their proposals is that of the development of new towns; unfortunately, exactly the field in which the Government have been the slowest to act. We know perfectly well what is the Government's record of creating and establishing new towns. They have been pathetically slow compared with what was done in those years of great difficulty after the Second World War.
There is a table at the end of the Ministry's Report describing the amount of land that has been acquired for various new towns. The amount acquired for which this Government have been responsible is at the moment two acres—one acre and a cow short of what would be required to establish a worthy peasant. I know that this is the prelude to what one hopes will be a good deal more, but it illustrates that the Government are, once again, failing to observe the importance of one section of the housing endeavour.


As the report on shipbuilding shows, this is a part of the housing endeavour in which the Government could most easily have encouraged new methods of building.
That brings me to the subject of planning generally, since new towns remind us of the wider considerations. I wish to refer—and in doing so I do not want to appear a bully—to the Minister of Transport. In an earlier housing debate I spoke of the new town of Dawley. The pleasure of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Birmingham when they heard that the new town there had been designated rather tempered their alarm when they were told that there were no train services in the neighbourhood. Having raised the point, I was delighted to hear from the Minister of Transport that, although there were no trains at present, he had given orders that the railway tracks were not to be pulled up.
This goes to illustrate how the Government have not grasped the realities of planning and the need to co-ordinate the activities of the different Government Departments. What interested me most was the statement of the Minister of Transport in which he said, in effect, "I decided that the tracks were not to be pulled up. I gave the instruction." Did the Minister of Housing have a word in the matter? I thought that might be so and that, perhaps, when the Minister of Transport said "I" it was a kind of ego et rex meus idiom such as that used by Cardinal Wolsey, and that he meant himself and the Cabinet.
The vital point here is that decisions of that kind are part of the great fabric of policy, and it is quite absurd to think of their being decided by the Minister of Transport in isolation. That is what has been so lacking in this Government until, if I may say so, the present Minister arrived on the job, but he comes so late and with such a legacy of neglect behind him.
In this year's Annual Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government there is no reference at all to the need to form some idea of what ought to be, broadly speaking, the distribution of industry and population over this country as a whole. Unless as the Government have some such picture in their mind, I do not believe that we shall ever get transport right, or housing right,

or unemployment right. One of our reasons for putting down these Votes today is that we feel that the Government have not grasped that matter at all, and one reason for that is that if one really tries to grasp it one has to study the land problem.
The Parliamentary Secretary said today at Question Time that as far as he understood our party's policy—and I accept the qualifying phrase, and it is important—it was an attempt to impose a form of taxation that had never worked in the past. Perhaps I may advise him to read a very interesting article that appeared recently in the Estates Gazette. It said that only the most foolish person would argue that our party's policy for land would not work. What frightened the Estates Gazette was that it would work, and, as it said, argument in future would be directed not to saying that it would not work but that it was morally wrong. People had to put forward boldly the moral case of being able to draw into one's pocket the increasing value of land due to the community's needs. Unfortunately, the article stopped short of telling us what the moral case was—I can only hope that that will appear in a subsequent instalment. Therefore, do not let the Parliamentary Secretary think that our policy will not work.
It is no good the Government continuing to pretend that the land problem does not exist. The only reference to it in the Ministry's Report is a statement about shortage of land as a difficulty in slum clearance. It is not only the shortage of land, but the appalling price that local authorities have to pay for the land. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) for yet another example from his county, where the authority tried to buy a piece of land in 1958 for £3,000. The owner, knowing that the Government were to pass the 1959 Act, hung on until 1960, and then sold the piece of land for £17,500.
The Minister of Public Building and Works said, "We will go ahead with house building as much as the money will allow", but if we allow the money to drain away like that it will not allow us to go nearly as far as we need to go. The Government must screw up their courage. They seem to have a passion for trying to get a reputation for stern


and courageous decisions. The trouble is that the decisions are always taken at the periphery of problems and not at the centre. The Minister of Transport will face with unparalleled heroism the prospect of a large number of railway-men being put out of work, but he will not face the necessity of a complete reconstruction of our transport system— —

The Chairman: I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that the Ministry of Transport Vote is not now under discussion.

Mr. Stewart: Nor, if I may say so, is that of the Ministry of Public Building and Works——

Mr. Rippon: That is why I did not deal with it.

Mr. Stewart: I quoted it merely by way of example.
Similarly, the Minister's concern with housing will show another example of this vicarious heroism, in advocating policies that will put up the rents of poor people. They say that they face this with unflinching courage—but they will not have the courage to tackle the land problem, which would get them into difficulties with their own supporters.
Since I have been referring to the Ministry's Annual Report, perhaps I may be allowed to say what a depressingly inadequate document it is. Of course, one passes over as a mere routine error the fact that although the Report was presented to the House in April. 1963, we are told three times—on the cover, in the title page, and in the introductory letter—that it was presented in April, 1962; twelve months earlier than was the case. One does not pay too much attention to that, but the Government will never reach the 'seventies if they start counting the years backwards.
More serious is the Report's complete failure to mention the gravity of the land price question, and the very sketchy information about improvement grants. We cannot take out from this document—or, as far as I know, from any Governmental source—what proportion of improvement grant is paid to owners of private rented property as distinct from owner-occupied property. Private houses are put separately, but I do not think that they are distinguished from

owner-occupied houses. At least that information should be in the Report, because it is part of the evidence on which we have to judge whether the Government's full reliance on private enterprise, which is their chief instrument of housing, is justified or not.
Information about the work of local authorities in granting mortgages appears periodically in the Ministry's quarterly or monthly reports, but we should have some sort of summary of that information in this annual document. There is no mention at all of the financial anxieties of local authorities and ratepayers except, for them, the cheerful information that the Government are to introduce legislation to cut down the rate deficiency grant. This is a totally inadequate document to report the work of a great Ministry and, if he is in a position to do so, I hope that the Minister will deal with that aspect in twelve months' time.
I mentioned rates and the financial anxieties of local authorities, and it is on that point that I want to conclude. The worrying thing is that not only are we having educational building cut and an inadequate building programme—the number of conversions going down, the slum clearance rate only microscopically up, and all the other things about which I have spoken, and which I know my hon. Friends will want to reinforce—but we are not even getting what there is cheaply from the ratepayers' point of view. I believe that is because the arrangements for paying for public services as between central and local government are inadequate to the demands we are now trying to make on them—partly because the Government are stuck on the idea of block, rather than personal grants.
The present Home Secretary said a year or so ago that in still defending the principle of percentage grants I was one of a dwindling minority. I find in The Times last week a letter from Sir George Schuster—a very distinguished former Member of this House and a distinguished figure in local government—saying that the value of the Minister of Health's proposed programme in the services for which he is responsible would be greatly increased if only local authorities had a proportionate instead of a fixed grant with which to carry it out.
I find an article in the Municipal Journal, again suggesting that block grants


are not the answer they were supposed to be. I find the House late last night giving a Second Reading to the Local Employment Bill providing, in this case, grants to private industry based exactly on the percentage principle, which is peculiarly suitable to the development of any service one wants specially to expand. The Government must get away from their doctrinaire approach to this matter and ask themselves whether the block grant decision they took in 1958 was right. Beyond that lie larger questions of local government finance.
I wish that the Government had agreed to do what we asked them to do in 1960, and they had set up a real inquiry to look into different ways of raising local government finance. Not having done that, they ought to be prepared to come to the immediate aid of the ratepayer by deciding to increase the amount of grant given from the central Government even if for the moment it is still to be on the block grant principle and not the percentage principle. I know perfectly well that that means that we pay as taxpayers instead of as ratepayers, but the point is that if one wants to it is much easier to make taxation fair than it is to make ratepaying fair. This is why the Government should pay attention to this matter.
It seems to me that all-round therefore we have good reason for being dissatisfied with the Government's work in this Ministry and in the Ministry of Education. We are constantly told of new inquiries which the Government are setting on foot, new torches which they are holding up for the future, new technical discoveries which a Ministry has just heard of from someone really expert in the matter and then relates in rather less convincing form to the House of Commons. But we are still up against the fact that if we are to make use of all the technical possibilities of the time we must make great administrative and political changes. We have to alter the form of local government finance. We have to get groups of local authorities to act together on a greater range of matters and more continuously and regularly than they do at present. And there is nothing that the Government are doing about local government reorganisation particularly to tackle that.

We must also tackle the question of land and the question of interest rates.
I make no apology for repeating these points, which are so often made from this side of the House, because every new fact, every new revelation of the technical possibilities that lie ahead of mankind underline the case for political and administrative changes of the kind which my hon. Friends and I have so often advocated.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is always a pleasure for anyone on this side of the Committee to follow in debate the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). He speaks with a wide range of experience, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him into the labyrinths of his argument. I do not question that, on the more complicated matters of interest rates, there are differences between the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who, I am utterly convinced, will deal with the hon. Member's argument in the most effective manner when he winds up the debate.
I do not know whether I misunderstood the hon. Member when he said that the Government were not paying any attention to the difference between one local authority and another when it came to subsidies, or to differences in the wage capacities of people who live in different local authority areas. I think that the Housing Act, 1961, differentiated very strongly between them. If the hon. Member is advocating that the Government should pay more attention to the ability of people to pay a fair rent for local authority houses, he is saying that there should be a differential rent scheme. I am sure that my constituents in St. Pancras, where there is a council which has spent the best part of last year or so in trying to wriggle out of a rent rebate scheme, will be interested in the hon. Member's argument. It cuts across the line taken by that Socialist council. The Government have been quite right in trying to see that local authorities pay more attention to the wage-paying ability of their tenants.
As for the Government's performance in giving assistance to local authorities


for any of the services which we are now discussing, I suppose that the hon. Member is advocating that the local authorities would benefit if we returned to the old percentage grant system. I wonder whether that would follow. I have before me figures which show that in 1958–59, under the old percentage grant system, local authorities received £409 million. In 1963–64, under general grant, it is estimated that they will receive no less than £628 million, and general grants cover about 56 per cent. of current expenditure on the services concerned. I believe that that is a proportion as high as ever before. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Member's case has been fully made out.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works on his excellent statement earlier today. I wish that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) were in his place, but I do not think that it would be unfair to make a passing comment in his absence on his interjection when my right hon. Friend was speaking. What we heard from my right hon. Friend was something which I think will enable us to step up the rate of house building, and it is of great importance that we should hear about these facts if we are to keep up the pace needed.
I also appreciate that baths are important. I would refer the hon. Member for Burnley and his hon. Friends to an article in The Times of 5th January which referred to some United Nations statistics based on national surveys made at different times since the war. These statistics showed the proportion of houses with fixed baths. It will be found that we are not at the bottom of this European league. Sixty-two per cent, of houses in this country have fixed baths, as against 10 per cent. in France, 7 per cent. in Belgium, 16 per cent. in Luxembourg, 30 per cent. in the Netherlands, 42 per cent. in Western Germany, and 10 per cent. in Italy.
The article in The Times goes on to point out that:
… if up-to-date comparative figures were available for the number of dwellings with fixed baths, the British lead would probably be striking.
I ask the hon. Member for Burnley to be reassured not only by what my right hon. Friend said but by my repeating

those figures. We on this side are just as concerned with the long-term situation as with the short-term.
It is not often that in the short time that have been a Member of Parliament one has felt able to speak without criticism on the vexatious problem of housing, and we all appreciate that it will be years vet before we get sight of a reasonable situation. It is true that prices are rising all the time, that the population is increasing, and the number of householders is increasing. It is difficult to keep pace with all this, let alone get ahead, but on this occasion I can feel in a friendly frame of mind because I think that my right hon. Friend said so much of good sense and that his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, has also been laying stress on just the right things. Their attitude to housing and town planning undoubtedly is remarkably sound. Together they are a couple of dynamic Ministerial twins. They work in harness and do a cracking good job together. They are concerned rightly in having more houses built and more built in the right places.
If we are to solve the London housing problem, a great many houses will have to be built outside London. The hon. Member for Fulham knows this only too well. It is not the rate of interest that has trimmed down the house building programme in London, it is the shortage of land and sites. This, when we get down to it, is the real stumbling block.

Mr. Neil McBride: The hon. Gentleman says that London's housing has not been trimmed by the high rate of interest. Will not he agree that in other parts of the country the rate of interest, at times reaching 7 per cent., on public borrowing by local authorities has been a major deterrent in the building of houses to let by local authorities? Has not the Government's policy in this respect been retrograde?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I should have thought that the consolidated loan fund on which local authorities could draw would cut that rate of interest considerably. I cannot speak of what happens in other parts of the country because I do not know them as intimately as I know London, but, from what I know of those places where there are pressing


housing problems, it has not been interest rates which have cut back the housing programme but, as in London, the shortage of sites.

Mr. McBride: And the price of land.

Mr. Johnson Smith: We know from the White Paper published by the Minister of Housing and Local Government earlier this year that in Greater London—I imagine that the lessons apply to other areas as well—we need 500,000 new houses during the next twenty years, and of those 50 per cent. will have to be built outside. I am concerned with the other 50 per cent., the 250,000, which must be built in London. Is my right hon. Friend emphasising the right line of policy here? In all fairness to him, I think that he is. He is right, of course, to attach importance to improvement grants, and he has been right, also, during the short time he has been at the Ministry, to publicise and give further encouragement and assistance to the housing association movement.
I am glad that be has taken action about population densities. In my view, the densities have been lamentably low in London and a most conservative approach has been adopted by some people on the London County Council. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has jacked them up, because I think that it is high time they were jacked up. I like my right hon. Friend's approach to the problem of the shortage of land. I am glad to see that a part of the Lea Valley, that rather decrepit bit of land where the horticultural industry has not been as prosperous as it might have been, is to be used for housing. There are other areas, too, which my right hon. Friend thinks might be brought into use for housing.
I am particularly pleased with my right hon. Friend's tremendous encouragement to local authorities to group together in consortia and use—the Minister of Public Building and Works told us about this earlier today—an extended C.L.A.S.P. system in the development of building techniques.
All these things should be said because one hears too often the other side of the picture. My right hon. Friend is giving the right sort of emphasis.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for

going through a list of things which the Minister has done. Can he tell me exactly how many extra flats or houses those efforts have produced in the boroughs of St. Pancras and St. Marylebone?

Mr. Johnson Smith: What I do say is that, unless we have a Minister who is interested in pioneering new techniques, we shall have far fewer than we need. Already, some industrialised building techniques are being used by the St. Pancras Borough Council. I am as interested as the Minister is in publicising this method of building so that we may have the progress we want.
We must appreciate also—I give grudging praise here—what is being done in regard to offices under the Town and Country Planning Bill now going through Parliament and by the setting up the Location of Offices Bureau.
I come now to three aspects of policy on which I have questions to put because I consider that the House deserves more information than is contained in the Ministry's Report for 1962. The first subject I take is office accommodation and office building.
As I understand it—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—there is already 18 million sq. ft. of office space being built or for which planning permission has already been given in London. This could add a further 180,000 people to London's working population, on the assumption that each office worker has 100 sq. ft. allocated to him or to her. I believe that the standard laid down by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill is 40 sq. ft. per worker, so I am taking a very conservative estimate when I say that this additional office space will add only 180,000 workers.
I understand that our town and country planning legislation permits the addition of 10 per cent. to the floor space of an office building built before 1948. If office owners or developers take advantage of this, as, I believe, many will, it could add another 7 million sq. ft. of office space in London. All in all, if people were to take advantage of all present or pending legislation regarding office accommodation, it would be possible to have a further 480,000 people added to the working office population of London.


This is a staggering, inconceivable addition which really could not be tolerated.
In this connection, it is interesting to note the attitude taken by a Department with which my right hon. Friend has been working in close and rewarding conjunction, as circulars issued during the past year have shown. British Railways recently put forward a monstrous office development scheme at Euston which would have added thousands of square feet to the total of office space in an area with a considerable housing shortage. It was, very rightly, rejected by the St. Pancras Borough Council and by the London County Council. However, if there are to be more offices in London, people will not object quite so much to such a scheme over the railway at Euston, Victoria, or any of the main line termini if other areas in London are released from the burden of office building so that there is not finally an addition to the total. Things are bad enough as they are without the railways going in for massive office building schemes.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will give us an assurance that he will confer further with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and keep in closer touch so that guidance can be given to British Railways not to submit such schemes, which are bound to be rejected, unless, as I suggest, we can be assured that would-be office developers elsewhere could be compensated for refusal of permission by being allowed to use space over the main line termini in London.
Now, improvement grants. Circular 42/62 asked local authorities to take the initiative in securing the improvement of whole streets or areas and expressed the belief that only by such a systematic approach by local authorities could a real impact be made on the task of improvement. This was an excellent circular containing the sort of guidance which is very badly needed. I want my right hon. Friend to tell us what progress has been made as a result of it.
My third question, allied to improvement grants, relates to policy for residential renewal. We all agree that there are very many twilight areas in London, these vast waste lands—one has only to travel by train to see them—where con-

ditions are at present obsolescent and there is wasteful use of land but where, with modern planning and all the techniques we have heard about being properly employed, we could help to build a far brighter and better housed Britain. Since land is so short, I am not sure that this is not really the kernel of the problem in London and, I imagine, in large measure in the other big conurbations also.
It is easy to think in terms of taking agricultural land for building purposes. On both sides, we recognise that there must be new towns and extended towns. But with the large and growing population which we have, we must make better use of the twilight, obsolescent areas in our big conurbations. This is the most difficult problem of all.
On page 27 of the Report we read that
The Minister has said that renewal will be the massive task of the late sixties and the seventies, and that preparatory work must begin now to improve knowledge of the problem and to develop methods of tackling it. The Joint Urban Planning Group is devoting increasing attention to this.
This Joint Urban Planning Group liaises very closely with the Ministry of Transport. This is another reason why one does not feel unfavourably disposed towards my right lion. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government because he takes this sort of thing very seriously. If he accepts, as I am sure he does, that the question of residential renewal goes to the core of the housing problem, it will be interesting to hear from him when he winds up what progress has been made in this connection.
Reference has been made to the desirability of private enterprise cooperation in residential renewal. The Minister, outside this House as well as in it, has referred to the desirability of private enterprise co-operation in residential renewal, but so far I have not heard many practical examples of it except that which goes on in prestige areas, such as in Knightsbridge, where the L.C.C. and private enterprise between them have developed a very imaginative scheme. But, as we all recognise, this is prestige stuff, with hotels, luxury flats and a great big piazza—a show place of London and, no doubt, of Europe. But it is of no concern to the people of St. Pancras.
I put these questions to my right hon. Friend not in a critical spirit but in a friendly spirit of inquiry. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend has his priorities right in the policies to which I have drawn attention. His policies are not restrictive. They are expansive and, I think, dynamic. I wish him well in his term of office. I feel confident that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works between them will be able to build at a greater rate the homes which we all know our citizens desire.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I understand that it is the tradition of the House of Commons to exercise a degree of friendly consideration towards Members making their first contribution to a debate in the Chamber. I ask the Committee for their indulgence since I cannot bring to bear on the subject that we are discussing either the depth of knowledge or the accumulated experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
One is often told—and I believe it to be true—of the importance of asking oneself questions, particularly the right questions, about any problems or studies which one is carrying on, and I think it appropriate at this stage of my period as a Member of Parliament to ask what I consider to be the right questions, to avoid preconceived ideas and to avoid being dogmatic. I therefore intend to ask questions and to make tentative suggestions rather than to come out with dogmatic assertions.
I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, the late Mr. Jack Jones, who, I understand, was held in high regard in this Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He was much liked and respected by the steelworkers of Rotherham, which I have the honour to represent. I hope that I shall be able to further the interests of the steel industry, which is so vital to the prosperity of my constituency, and of all my constituents in the Borough of Rotherham.
I have chosen today as the time to make my maiden speech because the subjects of housing, local government and rates affect daily the lives of all my constituents. The desperate shortage of housing at prices which people can

afford to pay is one of the most urgent and pressing problems of the mid-twentieth century. Hon. Members on both sides will agree—and moving round their constituencies they cannot do other than agree—that the very large number of people living in houses designated as slums, and the much larger number of people living in houses which should be designated as slums, constitute a blot on the record of a wealthy nation at this stage of the twentieth century.
We are aware of the heart-breaking position of many young couples and old people who wait for and want a house and who, when they are able to buy a house privately, find themselves in considerable difficulty because of the high interest rates which have prevailed during the last few years. We are also aware of the long waiting lists in practically all the local authorities in this country.
I make no comment this afternoon on the Government's record in dealing with this problem. I note that 278,000 houses were built in 1962 and that 169,000 people were cleared under slum clearance in that year. I welcome these things, but we must recognise that they do very little more than scratch at the problem. Members on both sides, inside and outside this Chamber, have stated on a number of occasions that if we are to cope with the vast problem of housing we need to build at least 400,000 houses a year.
I turn to what can be done in the immediate future to deal with this tremendous problem which confronts the nation. I suggest, first, that we could do a great deal more to improve existing houses, particularly the older houses in the northern industrial towns. One of the greatest problems confronting the corporation in the constituency which I represent has been the reluctance, for many reasons, of private landlords to repair or improve property.
I am cognisant of the circulars of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government last year saying that the Ministry would consider allowing the compulsory purchase of property which landlords refuse to repair or to sell, but I wish that the compulsory purchase procedure could be speeded up. I also wish that the local authorities were in a better financial position to do much more in this respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) brought up the question of baths in houses. During the recent by-election at Rotherham I was approached by many people who raised the same problem with me. They were living in old property which they were renting from private landlords and, not unnaturally, they wanted a bath put into their house. The private landlords, for a variety of reasons, were often unwilling to do this. I appeal to the Minister to raise the minimum standards of houses SO that landlords are compelled to provide what should be in every house in the country.
I listened with interest to the hon Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), who said that we were nearly at the top of the league in this respect. He pointed out that 62 per cent. of our houses had baths and that our record was better than that of many continental countries. This is to be expected when we consider the public health movement which took place in this country during the nineteenth century. It does not help to go to one's constituents, when they ask for a bath to be put in their house, and tell them 62 per cent. of the people have baths and that they are, therefore, a lot better off than people in other countries. They are not, of course, convinced by this argument.
The Minister of Public Building and Works said that 400 baths a week were being put into houses. This is interesting. Nevertheless, I ask that the minimum standards of housing be raised so that landlords are compelled to put in what should be an amenity in every house.
I turn next to the problem of new houses. How can we increase the number of houses built in the near future, as well as in the more distant future? First, it is a question of getting our priorities right. In a speech at Folkestone in March, 1962, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the country could not afford to build 400,000 houses a year because that would place too heavy a burden upon our national resources. He also said that in 1961, 37 per cent. of total building was taken up in the construction of houses and dwellings and that this figure was as high as we could safely go.
In similar vein, in answering a Question on 7th March, the Minister implied that he did not think that the housing situation could, or should, be helped by siphoning off labour from commercial transactions. I disagree with those conclusions. We must consider not only the human aspect, but also the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham when he referred to what were almost truisms in the N.E.D.C. Report in speaking of the importance of the mobility of labour.
During the short time that I have been a Member of the House, I have heard on a surprisingly large number of occasions statements that we must make this country and British industry efficient and that there must be great changes and alterations in the make-up of industry. If there is one thing that will hold up the reorganisation of industry, it is the difficulties of social mobility.
I should like to quote an example from my constituency. I understand that some little time ago, as a result of the reorganisation and modernisation at a large steelworks, a number of men were to be declared redundant. They have, in fact, been declared redundant and more will be declared redundant in the near future. Some were offered employment in the steel industry at Scunthorpe, 35 miles away. Quite a large number of them would have been willing to go to Scunthorpe—indeed, having looked at the place, they would have liked to go—but only 28 workers were able to do so because there was no provision there for housing. I use this merely as an example to support the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. Therefore, in considering how we can increase the number of houses which we build, we must first consider whether our priorities are right.
Secondly, I refer to the difficult question of the capacity of the building industry. I welcome the references to the possibilities of using shipyards for industrial building. I am well aware of the difficulties of the building industry with a limited skilled labour force. I do not wish now to go into the technical details of how the building industry can increase its productivity in future years. I merely make the comment that the N.E.D.C. Report, and,


similarly, the report commissioned by the Builder, which appeared in November last year, stressed the importance, as did the Minister of Public Building and Works, of the need for confidence in the industry and of the confidence that would come from forward planning and a steadily expanding economy.
I welcome the remarks of the Minister of Public Building and Works about this matter this afternoon. All I hope is that in the future we have a steadily expanding economy so that the building industry will have the confidence which is necessary to go forward to meet the housing problem.
My third point is the question of the financial resources of local authorities. I have made some suggestions and the Minister of Public Building and Works has made statements about increased efficiency and new methods in the building industry. The usefulness of these improvements depends ultimately upon the financial ability of local authorities to build houses and the financial ability of private householders to buy them.
I cannot agree with the statement of the Minister that high interest rates make little or no difference to a local authority's housing programme. In the Rotherham rate estimates for 1963–64, 2s. 8d. out of a 10s. 2d. rate will go on loan charges. When one looks at the statements in the Press in any locality and considers the efforts of local authorities to expand their services, to build houses, one always sees the downward pressure on the rates. If, therefore, there is the pressure of loan charges upon rates, one must obviously argue that it will affect, as it has done, the building programme of local authorities.
I would, however, be the first to say that cheap money offers only a partial answer to the problem. The whole financial system of the local authorities, both the local method of raising taxation—the rating system—and the financial relations between the centre and the localities, might well be brought into question.
We have a system of raising taxation locally which was inherited from the beginning of the seventeenth century, and it imposes on the financial system of local authorities a burden—and it is one which will increase year by year—which it was never designed to bear. During the short time that I have been a Member, I have

noticed that Questions have been asked from both sides suggesting, for example, that relief might be given to older people living on fixed incomes to whom rates are a heavy burden. I suggest that this is only skirmishing with the problem. It merely touches the fringe of it and does not get to its core.
I noticed with great regret that in the 1957 White Paper the Government declared their unwillingness, or stated that at that time they were not prepared, to have an inquiry into the rating system or the possibility of other systems of local taxation and I have regretted similar statements which have appeared ever since that time.
I should like to refer briefly to the general grant. When considering any system of grants between the central and the local authorities, we have to ask ourselves what kind of grant system will give incentive to local authorities to carry out improvements and raise the standards of their services and encourage them to carry out programmes of capital development. If the system of grants does not do that, and is not seen clearly to do so, then the whole system, I feel, is perhaps called into question.
I would like to make a passing reference to the limited section of the system covering grants between the central Government and the local authorities—that concerned with rate deficiency grants. I understand that, as a result of the revaluation which took place, the local authorities in receipt of rate deficiency grants have found that their rateable values have not risen in the same proportion as those of local authorities who are not getting these grants have risen. The Government declared their intention of limiting the Exchequer's contributions towards these grants. I think that the sum involved was £25 million. It appears, from Vote 7, that for this year at any rate the Government have decided not to go forward with that proposal, and I hope that they do not do so.
In concluding my remarks on the financial structure of the local government system, I would say that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country, in all constituencies, and I believe, in many local authorities, on the whole vexed question of financial


arrangements. Therefore, I would like to see a comprehensive inquiry into the financial structure of local authorities and their financial relationship with the central Government.
While these relationships are being considered, there is also another extremely important aspect which must be considered at the same time and, indeed, it is one that should be kept under constant review by the Government. This is the balance of power between the central Government and the local authorities. Since the nineteenth century, when the term "local government" first began to appear in the Press, central control and supervision—a very necessary control and supervision—has developed, Apparently it has developed hand in hand with the amount of financial contribution made by the central Government.
I believe that there comes a point in the scale of balance when the degree of power at the centre begins to affect adversely the initiative of local authorities. I believe that we have perhaps reached that point and therefore, in asking for an inquiry into the financial arrangements, one must also ask that the central—local government relationship be also considered.
If we can develop in the long-term an adequate financial system for the local authorities within their own localities, and of grants from the central Government, and if we can maintain local initiative, which is so important, then we can go forward into the remainder of the twentieth century to deal adequately not only with housing but with all the other problems of local government in a way which will make our towns and cities and counties much happier places to live in than they are in 1963.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: It is an honour and a privilege to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and it gives me very great pleasure to follow the custom of the House in congratulating him. But it is not merely because one has to follow the custom that I offer my congratulations. I know, from my own experience of a debate on the same subject in 1960, the feeling of a new Member when he comes to make his maiden speech.
I was particularly pleased when the hon. Gentleman referred to his predecessor. Jack Jones was, as he said, well known and well loved. Indeed, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not only was he well known and well loved, but that he is still missed by a great many hon. Members because he was a man whom one could go to, if one were interested in gardening, and get a great deal of advice.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: And on fishing.

Mr. Hocking: Fishing is outside my activities.
I enjoyed the style of the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham and the clear way in which he advanced his arguments. He will realise that on this occasion most of my hon. Friend's would not agree with all that he had to say, but we nevertheless look forward to hearing him again on some other occasion when perhaps, unrestrained, we may take him up on some points.
This debate on housing and local government is a most important one in the Parliamentary calendar. It is, perhaps, not surprising that it comes up at about the same time every year, just before the local government elections. Points are made from each side which, perhaps, have some bearing on those elections.
But I feel that the Opposition have been particularly niggling with my right hon. Friends in the way they have viewed the work of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in view of all that has been going on. I believe that my right hon. Friends are worthy of congratulation because the facts of the number of houses built during the last ten or eleven years are well known. Indeed, they are so well known that practically every schoolboy and schoolgirl can quote them. The houses can be seen throughout the country.
I remember that when I was studying at the School of Architecture the principal used to say that the vast majority of people go about with their eyes shut and do not know what they see. I begin to think that some members of the Opposition go about with their eyes shut and do not see what is there. Houses have been built in vast numbers.
Within the last few days, I have been reading some pamphlets which have been published by the Opposition. Perhaps they are the prelude to a campaign. I was reminded, in doing so, of the old song, "Two different worlds", because I am convinced that the information that is being put over by hon. Members opposite about housing problems is totally different from the facts and figures in the official statistics.
The figure given this afternoon by my right hon. Friend was 135,000 houses built last year by the local authority. But in an Opposition pamphlet the figure is put at 104,000. That is one example. During the last ten years a tremendous number of houses have been built—about 3,400,000, divided approximately between local authorities and private enterprise, with a slight emphasis on local authority housing.
It is often said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that my right hon. Friend has cut housing subsidies, but the fact is that housing subsidies are running at three times what they were in 1951 and 1952. How can it be said that housing subsidies have been cut when the total bill has increased threefold?

Mrs. Slater: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost of building houses has risen, and that if one looks at the subsidies in relation to that fact one finds that there has been no real increase in their value?

Mr. Hocking: I shall come on to discuss the price of houses.
Another matter which is not generally given the approval that it deserves is the Government's slum clearance programme. I am sure that many hon. Gentlemen opposite travel the country in the fulfilment of their political engagements. If they were to look around the various cities as they went through them they would notice the number of slums that are being torn down and the number of flats and houses springing up in their place. It may be that, again, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not see what is there to be seen as they travel. I hope that the slum clearance programme will be further accelerated in the months ahead. This is one of the most important points of the Government's policy, and

I hope that greater impetus will be given to it, especially with regard to the factory-built housing units to which my right hon. Friend referred.
When my right hon. Friend was speaking I was a little doubtful about what exactly was meant by his reference to these industrialised methods in the shipyards. Are we to see houses and flats built in the shipyards and transferred to housing sites? If so, is it not a fact that these heavy units will be used only in small localised areas near the shipyards? I ask this because the problems of transporting these units will be immense; and even if this problem is overcome the cost of transport will add considerably to the cost of the dwelling.
I noticed with interest that my right hon. Friend mentioned various well-known methods that are being used for building houses. He also referred to a number of new methods of industrialised building that were coming forward. I hope that my right hon. Friends will not fall into a trap. Shortly after the war a number of methods were brought in for industrialised building. One seldom opened a technical journal without coming across a new system. I hope that we have not gone full circle, and that week after week we are to hear about new methods, none of which comes to fruition.
The C.L.A.S.P. system is an extremely good one. It is well known and well tried, but a large proportion of the labour used in this system of construction is building labour. There is a tremendous shortage of good workers at the moment, and unless the system can be sufficiently modified to allow other people to be employed it will not be possible to use it to any great extent.
I was interested to hear of the new system referred to as Nenk. Nevertheless, I could detect little difference between this system and the system of trussed steel houses which have been built for some time, and I give a word of warning to my right hon. Friends. Do not pursue too many of these schemes at once. Instead, find one or two goods ones and bring them into use as quickly as possible.
As a practical house builder, I am concerned about some of the advice that is given to the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite from time to time. I have listened to many housing debates in this


House. The same sort of arguments are always advanced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I believe that if the policies they advocate were followed they would have disastrous effects on the country. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite always adopt the same attitude with regard to housing. They look at the problem from a narrow point of view. Most of the arguments advanced today have been concerned with the local authority tenant. Far too little attention is paid by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the vast majority of people who have no wish to become local authority tenants. They much prefer to be tenants of a private landlord.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that on several occasions my hon. Friends have asked the Government to reduce interest rates to help owner-occupiers, and that it is the Government who are making it difficult for people to purchase houses?

Mr. Hocking: I shall have something to say about the suggestions made by hon. Gentlemen opposite about house purchase.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to the question of rent control and no doubt in their deliberations at the seaside in the autumn they will again advance arguments for the municipalising of privately-owned rented property. Do they really consider that this is the right way to persuade people to invest money in housing for the general good? I submit that it is not. One thing which cramps the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter is that they believe that every landlord is a bad landlord. Little do they realise that there are many institutions, such as pension funds, which would be only too pleased to put their money into housing merely to get a fair return on their money, I therefore hope that those who speak after me, instead of decrying private investment in housing, will encourage it.
A point which has been made again today concerns the high cost of land. I have looked carefully at the suggestions which hon. Gentlemen opposite have urged on my right hon. Friend. It has been suggested that a land commission should be set up. The Liberal Party made a similar suggestion, and I am

surprised that no Liberal Members are here to put forward their party's point of view. Perhaps I might give the Committee the facts behind the high cost of land. If we are all agreed upon a planning policy—and I do not think that anyone today is against it—and we decide that a restricted amount of land should be used for housing purposes, and a restricted amount of land is, in fact, used for such purposes, it follows that the cost of the remaining land will rise.
I am not altogether satisfied that sufficient land has been allocated for the provision of houses. I have argued this privately with various of my hon. Friends from time to time. I have no doubt that over the next few years more land will have to be provided for housing. I cannot sec that the setting up of a land commission either by my right hon. Friends or by right hon. Members opposite will provide one square yard more of building land.
It is suggested that all land should be bought in by the commission, and that by setting it up costs will be reduced. In fact, judging by all the detail that has been proposed by hon. Members opposite, the only ultimate effect that this will have will be to put up the cost of housing to the individual householder. The cost will not rise immediately; the process will be spread over a number of years. There will be a small premium payment for the right to build a house on certain land, followed by a lease, and presumably by the leaseholder paying rent.

Mr. James MacColl: The hon. Member is correct in saying that it is part of planning that one tends to restrict the use of land, and that that causes the price of land to rise. That is why the 1947 Act contained financial provisions to met those difficulties and to provide financial control. The present Government did not like those provisions. That is the point that I am arguing. Our complaint is that they abolished controls on the price of land. It is clear that if one is planning one must control finance as well. That is what the Uthwatt Report says. Our complaint is that, having abolished financial controls, the Government preserved planning controls.

Mr. Hacking: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the whys and the wherefores of the 1947 Act. It is sufficient for me to tell him that that


Act was one of the things that confirmed me in my belief in the Conservative Party. I say no more than that the provisions made at that time did little to help those who wanted to purchase houses. I well remember some of the charges that were then tacked on.
I return to my previous point. The proposals which are being urged on my right hon. Friend by hon. Members opposite to set up a land commission to take into public ownership all land available for housing development, and presumably other development, will not help the individual purchaser.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member has got on to this rather entertaining sideline, and I would like to follow him in it. If he takes the trouble to read our proposals he will discover that we do not propose to take over land for house building for owner-occupation. I do not want to encourage him to join the Labour Party, but if that is his objection I suggest that he had better come over here.

Mr. Hocking: The policies of hon. Members opposite are very strange, and difficult to understand. I doubt whether some hon. Members opposite understand them themselves. In the documents that I have read it states quite clearly that the proposal is to take over land when a planning application is made. Nothing is said in the words that follow to indicate that this will be done only in respect of public housing, and that private housing is not to be included.

Mr. MacColl: It is only in respect of houses for owner-occupation.

Mr. Hocking: That is an even more peculiar scheme. I do not believe that it will contribute in the slightest way towards helping those who wish to purchase houses for themselves. It will push up prices. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), who introduced a Leasehold Bill earlier this year, would not have been so keen on extending the whole business of leasehold reform in this respect.
What we should do is to assess what land will be needed for housing, taking into account that which can be built upon in some of the twilight and slum areas. We should assess the requirements for the

next twenty years and allocate that land, here and now. If that were done I am certain that the price of building land would quickly fall. It is obvious that some of the properties would have to be built on virgin land.
I now turn to the question of building society interest rates and interest rates in general. I have always been mystified by the fact that hon. Members opposite have never been able to understand the relationship between one interest rate and another. It is generally recognised that the interest rates charged by building societies are fixed largely in accordance with the interest paid on National Savings Certificates. It is a surprising fact that those who purchase such certificates receive 3 per cent. or so, tax-free, while those who invest in building societies receive the same amount.
Building societies have to obtain their money from somewhere. They persuade people to invest in them. By the time these societies have paid their taxation the interest rate can easily be built up to the level which has prevailed in recent months. I hope that as a result of the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, building society interest rates will fall in the coming months. I hope that, as the interest on Savings Certificates is reduced, so will building societies reduce their rates. That is a much better way of dealing with the matter than by adopting the policies that have again been advocated this afternoon, of having separate interests and providing money at cheap rates for certain things.
I am interested to know where this money is coming from. It is suggested that local authorities should be given cheap money in order to build their houses. I have noticed that in some of the documents published by the Opposition money is also to be provided for owner-occupiers. Where is it to come from? If it is to be gathered in by way of taxation it follows that taxation will have to be increased. We are never told exactly where the money is to come from. I would prefer to see my right hon. Friend adopt a policy of reducing the general rate of competition for building society money and, at the, same time, reducing taxation on building societies. I welcome all that has been done to date in connection with Schedule A.
Some of the recent speeches made by hon. Members opposite have suggested that larger mortgages should be made available to people who want to buy property. I would have thought that 90 per cent., or 95 per cent., which is the general range offered by building societies, was about as high as it was possible to go. I suggest that if we provide that 100 per cent. should be the general figure, we shall in the end lead the country into a great deal of trouble.
I want to put some points to my right hon. Friend. His Report is an excellent one. I notice that on page 11, under the section which deals with housing, there appears a short paragraph on the cost of building local authority houses. The Report says that the cost of a three-bedroom house rose, on average, by 10 per cent. in 1962, as compared with 1961, and that it was 10 per cent. higher in 1961 than in 1960. I believe that the time has come when an inquiry should be set up into housing costs. I am not convinced that all which could be done has been done to reduce the cost of housing.
I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend this afternoon that inquiries are to be made about building management and into the liaison between the building owner and the constructor. I think that there is great scope for investigation into the possibility of reducing housing costs. I know that I may be charged by hon. Members opposite with wanting to create lower standards in housing, but that is not the point of my argument. I believe that in many of the schemes of local authorities and, indeed, of private house builders, far too little attention is paid to reducing costs or attempting deliberately to build something at a lower price range.

Mrs. Slater: How?

Mr. Hocking: The hon. Member asks how. I have never understood why the building industry, above all, should be the one industry where the person responsible for building is not consulted by the designer. I am sure that a tremendous fund of advice could be provided by the contractor to the person designing for a local authority. Hon. Members opposite will be conversant with the method prevailing at present among local authorities. A design is prepared, bills of quantities prepared, and eight or nine contractors

are invited, or apply, to tender. There is no consultation between the designer and the constructor.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Gentleman will know that two-thirds of the price of a house is represented by the building materials and only about one-third is the cost of on site. Did his investigation include an inquiry into the cost of building materials?

Mr. Hocking: The hon. Member is a little astray with his figures. The actual cost—it is a yardstick on which I work—of labour and materials is approximately equal in a house building programme. Those are the first two figures at which I look in my company's balance sheet year by year. If they are about equal I know that we are working in an efficient and profitable way. Immediately one figure gets out of balance with the other I know that something will begin to go wrong. From my own experience I am satisfied that building materials are obtainable in this country on a reasonably competitive basis—for some of them a very competitive basis.
To return to the argument which I was advancing, I believe that there should be more consultation between designer and constructor than there has been in the past. When one buys a motor car one goes to a company which completes the design and the construction. But it has not been considered worth while to do that in this country in respect of building. The two things are divorced. If there could be more consultation between the designer and the constructor, I believe that attention would be paid to the sort of equipment available and that new techniques could be developed.
There are a few other specific items which I should like to mention in connection with the lowering of housing costs. Recently, I inspected a number of housing schemes in and around the Midlands. I went into local authority houses to see what was going on. To my amazement I discovered that the window surrounds inside some flats were made of formica, pressed on a wooden base—the most expensive way of getting over that detail.
In another scheme I noticed that mahogany screens had been made to go


round the dustbins. I agree that dustbins should be obscured. But I fail to see why it is necessary to build elaborate mahogany screens in order to conceal them. In a third scheme I noticed that expensive facing bricks were being used in the construction of garages. Those three details—they may be small—add to the expense of construction and, in the end, if it means an addition of only £20 or £30 to the construction cost, the tenant will have to pay more in rent, or a would-be owner has to pay more in mortgage repayments.
I think that the time has come when we should consider some of the schemes regarding building management and cooperation between constructor and building owner. We ought to pay more attention to ways of building houses more economically so that people may more easily afford to buy them.
The last point I wish to refer to was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). It is the question of co-operation between local authorities and private developers in the reconstruction of slum clearance and "twilight" areas in our large cities. I am not sure that the average young couple wishes to acquire a library of local authority rent books, fully paid up. I believe that they are far more interested in acquiring a property in which they can live.
There are these vast areas of redevelopment within our cities and towns and I think that there must be some farm of co-operation possible between local authorities and private developers. It must be possible to make some provision to enable young people to acquire property in such areas. A number of schemes have been put forward and a number of schemes are in operation in various parts of the country.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am trying to draw together the threads of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which seems to be rather contradictory. He wants young people to own houses, which is an admirable thing. But a few moments ago he was saying that mortgages ought not to be granted for more than 90 per cent.— —

Mr. Hocking: I said 95 per cent.

Mr. Denis Howell: Well, 95 per cent. It is well known that few, if any, building societies will advance mortgages to people earning less than £15 a week, and there are many young couples who are in that position. How, therefore, does the hon. Gentleman tie all this together? In his admirable desire to get people to own houses apparently he does not include most of the worthwhile young couples in our society.

Mr. Hocking: I am surprised at that interjection from an hon. Member representing a Birmingham constituency.

Mrs. Slater: Why?

Mr. Hocking: The level of wages and salaries among young people in Birmingham is probably much the highest in the country. Today, a tremendous number of people could qualify for a mortgage, if a property could be purchased for about £2,000, or £2,500. I think that the arguments I have advanced for an inquiry into how property could be built for that sort of figure are sound.
I mentioned the fact that building societies are prepared to make advances of up to 95 per cent. I think that that is plenty and that 5 per cent. is a reasonable deposit. I do not think it worth while to encourage people in the belief that they ought to get mortgages of 100 per cent. and do nothing themselves. I am satisfied that there are people who are in a position to apply for such a mortgage and that they ought to be given the provision.
What concerns me is that hon. Members opposite seem to regard these areas in the centres of cities as areas which for all time should be kept as separate places where only council houses can be built. I am not persuaded, and I do not think that I ever shall be, that it is a good thing that all these areas should become vast council house estates. That is not a good thing from a social point of view. There ought to be mixed communities. As I said earlier, I do not think that young people are at all keen today merely on acquiring a library of fully paid-up local authority rent-books.
I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to give some consideration to what can be done in the coming months and years to encourage private enterprise, private


contractors, private developers—call then what we will—to co-operate with local authorities in the provision of houses and fiats in these slum clearance areas. This is one of the most important points which should be taken up. It is a most important policy which could be pursued, because young people are not keen to become council tenants. It is not right that we should condemn them to that rôle.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I believe the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) has been termed the odd Member for Coventry. This is in not in respect of any of his characteristics, but by reason of the fact that he shares the representation of that city with two of my colleagues on this side of the Committee. However, after his speech I think the word "odd" will have another connotation.
It was extraordinary that a representative of the great city of Coventry, which by comprehensive ownership by the local authority of most of the land in the city centre has enabled it to rebuild in such a manner as compares with any city in the world, should criticise the proposals which we have for a land commission which would enable just this to be done in other cities.
What has been done in Coventry is in striking contract to what has happened in many other cities where the local authority has not had the same opportunity for civic development. Even in London, although some better attempt is being made now than was made after the Great Fire, it is still a constant disappointment to many of us that rebuilding all round the great St. Paul's was allowed to come so close to it despite all that was said by architects over 400 years about mistakes made in the reign of Charles II.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to take up too much time in criticism of the hon. Member's speech, but I shall have something to say about some points he made. Nevertheless that comment, coming from Coventry, was extraordinary. I do not know what his electors and the city council will think about his speech.
We are fortunate in having an opportunity to discuss some of the many activities of the Minister of Housing and

Local Government. I hope that the Committee is grateful to the Opposition for putting down these Votes for discussion. I am disappointed, however, that just as the activities of the Minister and the Ministry are ever increasing and become more and more significant in the lives of our citizens, the annual Report of the Department seems to become more and more meagre. It is an insubstantial document for a great Department such as this. It does less than justice to the Department's work and does not consider the convenience and interests of hon. Members and the public generally.
The important matter of green belts is dismissed in five lines. Under the "Landlord and Tenant" section of the Report a large part is devoted to three compulsory purchase orders and the first paragraph discusses the 1962 Landlord and Tenant Act. That was a further attempt to make landlords provide a rent book, which has always been the law, but apparently only in recent times has been enforceable. It is a sad and unfortunate matter that this Report should be compressed and condensed in such an unsatisfactory way. I hope the Committee will have better treatment in future years.
Before coming to the two main points I want to make—about housing in London, in which I want to take up some points made by the last hon. Member to speak in the debate, and planning in general—I want to draw attention to page 49 of the Report and to the very small number of tree preservation orders which have been confirmed. Last year there were only 431. Since the whole operation of this Section 6 of the 1947 Act, only 3,800 orders have been for England and Wales. This is astonishingly few. This may seem a small matter, but trees are disappearing—not only from towns hut from the country on quite an alarming stale. We are losing one of our great glories.
A great deal of this destruction is wanton: some of it is mere thoughtlessness. I had correspondence with the previous Parliamentary Secretary on the question of alerting more local authorities to their responsibilities and powers under this Section. At the time he did not seem to think there was much need to do so, but I am certain that many local


authorities do not realise what their powers are and perhaps have not thought about them sufficiently.
In the area in which I live Strood Rural District Council has had delegated powers to make orders for twelve years, but ten years passed by before it made a single order. Now two orders have been made. That is a beginning, but this is a rapidly developing area where many more orders should have been made, not only to maintain amenity but to provide wind breaks, to prevent erosion and to damp down noise and dust in streets. Because of amenity and other aspects, I hope that the Minister will consider some action whereby more local authorities might be encouraged to make more orders in appropriate cases.
Near to my home there is a row of new shops which must take the prize for being some of the ugliest creations erected anywhere by anyone. I suggested to the council that they might be screened by having a few trees and shrubs before them, but I was told that the council has no plan for planting any trees anywhere and in this case the highway authority will not allow them to be planted where there is paving. That must be nonsense, because the only way to plant trees in streets is where there is paving. We remember the former Member for Bermondsey, Dr. Arthur Salter, and how he transformed Bermondsey by having trees planted there on the pavement. They are still a very great pleasure to the inhabitants of the borough and to those who pass through it. This is the place where trees could make a vast difference to amenity.
I want to refer to some problems in relation to housing in the London area in which is situated my own constituency of Hayes and Harlington. Far from taking a narrow view as the hon. Member for Coventry, South suggested, we on this side of the Committee put the point of view of all those who seek and desire a decent home. Perhaps we do not overstress the landlord's case, but there have never been wanting plenty of hon. Members opposite to repair any deficiency in that regard. In the investigations I recently made about housing conditions in the built-up areas of London and Middlesex I found that for anyone desiring a decent home and

accommodation in the area prospects are worse and far more costly than they were ten years ago. This is one commentary on the success of Conservative housing doctrine over the last ten years.
I propose to give a few examples of what this means in practice. There are now, and were not ten years ago, 4,000 people in the county of London without any home at all. We all know that there are material difficulties in relation not only to those seeking a home on a council estate but also those who are trying to secure a home by any means they can. Reference has already been made to the figures over the last ten years in relation to the increase in interest rates and how this was instituted to slow down council building. I looked again at this question. A Parliamentary Answer was given by the Minister on 21st December, 1962, in relation to the cost of building council houses. At an interest rate of 3¾ per cent. in 1951 when Labour was in power, repayment on a three-bedroomed council house over sixty years was just over £4,000.
In 1961, the year to which the Question related and for which the figures are available, over 60 years the total cost of the same type of house was £9,000. The cost of building a house has gone up by about £300 because of increases in wages and costs which have gone up quite considerably, but I think that is the sort of burden that can be borne. The increase is due also to higher prices for services and which must be met, and for land, which has gone up for each house by no less than £600. The main increase, of course, is the difference of the high level of interest rates, 6¾ per cent. prevailing at the time and 3¾ in 1951. That has added a tremendously increased burden on the local authority, the ratepayers, and the council tenant.

Mr. Frank Allaun: £5,000.

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, more than £5,000 of that sum is due to the increase in interest rates alone. It is the craziest way of financing homes. On top of the high interest rates, we have the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. There is always objection when Labour Members refer to this Act, but its effect on social development, civic development of all kinds, has been disastrous. It has inflated the price of land


for every useful purpose. Its most distorting and twisted effect is where we have the use of land required for housing purposes.
In my constituency, which is 14 or 15 miles from the West End—the area of the greatest value for land—a site of a little more than 2 acres came on the market a little while ago. The local authority, to buy the land, would have to pay not the market value—we really muddle the question when we think that the local authority buys at the market value—but the highest speculative value for the land, which is a considerable difference. For just over 2 acres of land the price eventually reached was £78,000, more than £32,000 an acre. The district valuer's price was £20,000 an acre. That I regard as bad enough, because this land a very few years ago would have been worth £500 or £600 an acre. This means that all the 2,000 families on the Hayes waiting list will wait longer because this land could not be bought for council building. The amount of development that will take place there will provide homes for many fewer people than would otherwise have been the case. This high price of land makes it all the more difficult for those depending on the local authority, because a large number of people who cannot buy homes in the London area are being driven by the Minister's policy further afield, adding chaos on the roads and railways, subjecting the Minister to the sort of pressure that no doubt he was under when he gave the deplorable decision in the case of the Swanley development, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) last night. We have private speculative builders being allowed to develop in the Darenth Valley, an area of great beauty, which is being spoilt because of pressure on land, and the local authority which has been prevented from extending its housing programme by Government prohibition.
We want more building land for local councils and others in towns, but instead of doing anything to provide more land at a reasonable price for housing, the Minister is constantly under pressure to allow sporadic development over the green belt for the private builder—this is really what it amounts

to—in parts of the country which are beautiful and well favoured.
On top of all that, the inhabitants in the London area have to face the consequences of the Rent Act. When I read in the Minister's Report the section headed "Landlord and Tenant Matters", I thought we should perhaps find something about the creeping decontrol of the Rent Act. But not at all. In the metropolitan area of London, the creeping decontrol of the Rent Act has now reached an astonishing proportion. I am grateful for an answer to me from the Minister just before Christmas, when he said that within the metropolitan area of London no fewer than 570,000 properties had been freed from any form of rent control under the Act.
The result of that policy is that thousands of ordinary people, and, indeed, a considerable number of professional people, are being driven out of the old residential West London boroughs because they cannot get accommodation at reasonable rents. When one considers the operation of the Rent Act, it is fascinating to recall the pronouncement made in the House on 21st November, 1956, by the present Minister of Health, because I think no pronouncement has been more wrong than the one he gave. On 21st November, 1956, talking about the free market under the Rent Act, the present Minister of Health said that it would:
halt the drain upon the rented accommodation, it will release additional accommodation which is under-used or wasted, it will arrest the deterioration of millions of houses for lack of maintenance, and it will give to persons who are moving or setting up home the opportunity to find accommodation in the market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1775.]
I would think that every time the hon. Gentleman is reminded of those words if he is capable of blushing he will do so deeply. Every one of his prophecies has proved to be wrong, as victims of the Rent Act know. I defy challenge of that statement.
So we find in the metropolitan area over 570,000 dwellings free from rent control as a result of that Act. It may be said that in London that does not matter, that a great many people can buy houses and, therefore, the object of the Rent Act in a round-about way will be achieved. We now know from the 1961 Census


figures that in the County of London alone more than 80 per cent, of all the householders still rent their premises and, indeed, must rent their premises because they have no opportunity in this congested area of buying houses.
Because of all the work by the L.C.C. and the boroughs we have not many houses in this area which are statutorily definable as slums. Nevertheless, the condition of a large number of houses is extremely poor because they were built so long ago. We now know from the 1961 Census that 30 per cent. of all households in the County of London—338,000 households—are still without a fixed bath in their premises, and that even in that county there are still 7,000 houses which have not the use of a separate W.C.
One of the few passages in this meagre soupcon of a Report which I find revealing and useful is the reference to the inspector's report in respect of Bethnal Green compulsory purchase order. On page 16, he says:
In this instance, the Inspector has drawn attention to the poor condition of the property, to serious defects in maintenance and management, and to the absence of any serious attempt to improve the property notwithstanding progressive rent increases in recent years.
It is true that that is only one particular case in Bethnal Green, but it represents much of the story of private landlordism in relation to rented houses in London. Despite rent increases, the houses are not repaired. It was true when the Royal Commission looked at the problem in 1834, it was true when the Marley Committee investigated it before the war and it is true today. Far from dealing with the condition of many of these properties, which was the promise as a result of the Rent Act, the Government have watched the situation grow worse. The L.C.C. calculate that 2,000 additional properties every year fall into the slum category. Until we have an entirely different approach similar to that sketched out in our plan for old houses, we shall make no inroads into the deterioration of old properties, some of which were built a hundred years ago nor be able to give those who live in them a decent home.
Some hon. Members opposite may say that in a congested area like London people can move out and buy houses. This will no doubt be the Minister's ex-

cuse, and the question will arise of his making more land available for building over the green belt. But a large number of people cannot afford to buy. Hon. Members will have read the article in the Observer by Mr. Needleman a few months ago in which he showed in relation to private enterprise houses that the most conservative price at which a two-bed-roomed house of 730 sq. ft. could be built by ordinary private builders was £2,250. He showed that if a man were successful in getting a 90 per cent. mortgage his annual repayments would be £256. Even if hon. Members assume, which I do not, that it is right for a man to pay up to a quarter of his income in rent, according to the figures issued by the Inland Revenue only three out of eight wage earners in the country would have such an income and so could afford to buy. Fewer than that, in fact, would get a mortgage, and even if they got a mortgage and were prepared to spend up to that proportion of their income, only three out of eight could buy a house.
That is why I wish that hon. Members opposite would firmly understand that we are not being dogmatic in saying that the overwhelming number of people must look to the local authority for housing. They have no alternative. Even after ten years of Conservative rule and all the advantages which we were supposed to get from the Rent Act, that is the position. I hope that it is not long before we have an opportunity to solve the housing problem from quite a different point of view, using principles which are much more practical, apart from the fact that they are much more just: by empowering local councils to build: as well as by better mortgage conditions.

Mr. Hocking: Mr. Hocking rose— —

Mr. Skeffington: Unless it is a vital point I would prefer to continue my speech.
The other great charge which we level against the Government—and this is known by expert opinion outside the House and by an increasing amount of opinion in the country—is the totally negative character of a great deal of their policy on the planning of land use. This is largely because of the 1954 and 1959 doctrinaire planning legislation. The last time I spoke I gave some examples from the areas in which I live of the way in


which development is being allowed because it is in the town map, irrespective of whether the social services are available. I have not completed my investigations there, but I can confirm that what I said then seems correct. Despite the fact that there are inadequate hospital services, inadequate rail services and inadequate educational services, development is going on with all the problems of congestion and muddle and expense to the whole community which must follow. The right hon. Gentleman for the sake of his reputation ought to look at how planning is working in the South-East, because a legacy of misery and muddle is being created by his failure to take much more positive action.
I want in particular to refer to the Minister's decision to allow residential development at Trosley in Kent. I referred to this on 26th February, when I raised the matter in some detail, which I shall not do today. The Minister was unable to reply because there was little time, but I wrote to him and said I hoped for a reply. On 8th April his Parliamentary Secretary sent me a full reply on all the other points which I had raised, but not about Trosley. I believe that Trosley is one of the greatest planning blunders made since the end of the war and the Minister does not want to answer the case against him. May I recapitulate briefly for those who do not know the story? The site at Trosley is the last remaining unspoiled and unbuilt escarpment on the North Downs. It is not merely a pretty rural area. It is already designated as of outstanding landscape beauty and it is about to be designated by the National Parks Commission, which has a statutory duty, as an area of outstanding natural beauty. For five or six years it has been in the proposed extension of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
There have been two inquiries into development schemes by inspectors of the Ministry, and in both cases they have turned down the schemes. The first inspector was Mr. Buchanan, a well-known name, who is the gentleman undertaking the traffic survey—a very distinguished officer. He agreed with those who said that there was no social need for any kind of development in this place. The second inspector found as a fact that the development was to be of a residential type for commuters or

retired people in the middle or upper income groups. Thus there is no social need for building at Trosley which would deal with the overcrowding in the towns and in the villages of Kent. Development will entirely be for commuters who will come into the area.
There are no existing social services. Schools will have to be built and roads will have to be made, hospitals still further crowded. The railways can take no more passengers and the roads will become even more congested. But, despite the overwhelming advice of all who have been consulted—the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and his own inspectors included—the Minister has allowed this development. This is a real tragedy. I hope that with a change of Government this decision will be reversed. It breaches every principle of good planning. I hope that the next Government will reverse this utterly deplorable decision when it comes into power and that this view will be sent out from the House tonight to those concerned.
I have another example of the Government's total lack of any positive principles in planning. Hon. Members are aware of the article which appeared on 14th April in the Sunday Times about "The Rape of the Coastline". This pointed out that in 110 miles between Portsmouth and Ramsgate there were only fifteen miles which are untouched by some kind of spasmodic development. It said:
Except for parts of the Isle of Wight and Beachy Head, nearly all the coast from Whitstable to Swanage is built up; no longer a series of individual towns and villages but continuous surburban sprawl. Slum shacks nestle against £25,000 houses, strange stilt-borne settlements seeming more appropriate to a Java swamp overflow on to the beaches, bungalows edge daringly to the cliffs' edges, and caravans settle with the discipline and monotony of tombstones.
This is what the Minister is allowing to happen to one of the most beautiful shores anywhere in the world. The article continues:
Can the coastline be saved? We are already stuck with an inheritance that in patches is almost obscene. The coast is still used for tipping rubbish.
For three years the Government have said that they would issue a circular or memorandum on coastal preservation. If they and we wait much longer there


will be nothing left to preserve. I ask the Minister to do something about this. If he spent more energy preventing the spoliation of the English coastline and countryside and less on trying to break down much of English local government, he would perhaps leave something for posterity. Instead, the legacy of the coastline and decisions such as that at Trosley will haunt him to his dying day. I hope that he will still take some opportunity to remedy these evil decisions before it is too late.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I am sure that we all extend a cordial welcome to the representative of the Liberal opposition—the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—who has just arrived. I am sorry that he has missed half the debate, because it is an extremely important one, which deals with human problems.

Mr. Erie Lubbock: I speak three times as often as the hon. Member does, anyhow.

Mr. Awdry: I do not see how we can discuss local government without discussing the whole question of rates. I hope that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments. Instead, in five or six minutes, I want to say something about rates. I have spent a few years in local government as a borough councillor, and I have been concerned in a few local elections. I think that I can state with some certainty that more interest is likely to be shown in the elections next week than has been shown in local elections for quite a long time. There is no apathy amongst the electors at the moment. There is a certain amount of resentment and anger.
I believe that the anger should not be directed against the Government, although I suppose that the Government will probably get some of the blame. The anger is directed against the rating system. We all know that education accounts for about one-half of local authority expenditure. It is that service which is growing so fast. Over the last five years the expenditure has grown at

the rate of about 8 per cent. per year. This year the figure may be as high as 10 per cent. At this rate, in 1970, we shall be spending as large a sum as £1,500 million on education, and possibly even more than that.
As the ratepayers are contributing one-half of this money, no wonder they are angry and resentful. I do not blame them. In my home town of Chippenham the local ratepayers' association, only a short time ago, found it difficult to arouse any interest and support. Following the recent revaluation, it has a great deal of support. In fact, it has recently held two meetings in the town hall, which was packed. Now, the association is fighting all the political parties in the local elections next week. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government not to ignore the very genuine indignation that the people now feel, and, I am sure, will continue to feel, until they are given a definite assurance that a full review of the rating system will be held.
Anyone who has made even the most superficial analysis of the rating system must agree that it is very rigid and inflexible. Hardship is now being caused—to people on fixed incomes and on pensions, and to people who have difficulty in balancing their household budgets. They have suddenly been faced with very large increases. In many cases to my knowledge this increase is as high as 65 per cent. or 70 per cent. on rates payable. In other cases the increase is even more.

Sir K. Joseph: Would my hon. Friend repeat that figure?

Mr. Awdry: I said a 65 per cent increase on rates actually payable. To take a case in point, a rateable value of about £25 has become a rateable value of about £106. The poundage, which was 23s., has become 10s. The rates payable, which were formerly about £30, have become about £55. I find these increases unacceptable, because they cause very considerable anxiety, hardship and embarrassment.

Mr. Lubbock: Who is to blame?

Mr. Awdry: The hon. Member for Orpington has made an interjection from a sedentary position. Perhaps it would be more profitable for me to try to sug-


gest some solutions to the problem than for me to take that point up.
I know that some people suggest that the whole of the cost of education should be financed by the Exchequer. I do not go along with that school of thought. Education is essentially a local problem. It is right and proper that it should be administered by those who understand the local conditions. Conditions vary very much from place to place. If all financial responsibility were taken away from the local authority, a blow would be struck at the very root of responsible local government. In any case, to transfer the full cost of education from the ratepayer to the taxpayer would throw a colossal burden on the Exchequer.
Then it is suggested that the cost of teachers' salaries should be transferred. I cannot see any logic in this solution, either. I do not think that the teachers would feel very happy about it at present. They are always very sensitive about too much control from Whitehall. There are some education services which have not a local flavour, but a national flavour—for example, teacher training colleges, colleges of advanced technology, and grants to universities. I should have thought that these could be transferred. If they were transferred to the central Government, it would very much alleviate the burden on the ratepayers to which I have referred.
I should have thought that a sensible solution would be to transfer a reasonable part of the cost to the Exchequer by lifting the size of the general grant. At present, the Government finance about 60 per cent. of the cost of education. If another 10 per cent. were transferred, it would be a considerable help. In addition, a more thorough study could be made of the whole question of equalisation grants, because it is clear that some authorities have suffered far more than others from the recent revaluation.
I realise that the country is arriving at a moment of truth. If it wants the finest education system in Europe, it must pay for it. Nevertheless—and I feel this strongly, because I am very interested in local government—I think that local government itself is suffering, and will continue to suffer, until a system is found for its finance which is seen to be fair by the people who are paying for it. Until that solution is found—it is a matter

of great urgency—local government will lose the good will that it deserves. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, will give us some assurance that action is intended, otherwise the resentment which I referred to—anger, perhaps—at the beginning of my speech will be felt by us all.

7.6 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am glad that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has referred to the absurdities and inequalities of the existing rating system. We are glad to welcome him as an ally in our demand in Labour Party policy for a root and branch reform of the rating system. I hope that the Minister has listened to what the hon. Member has said and will therefore prove to be more receptive to the policy which we on these benches have been advancing.
The hon. Member is quite right. The present system of raising money for all these local tasks is so patently unfair that it is leading to something like a revolutionary resistance among the people concerned. I want later in my speech to refer to another aspect of the absurdities of the rating system in connection with the housing problem. The Minister of Public Building and Works left out of his speech some of the most vital and urgent aspects of the housing problem as local authorities have to try to cope with it Everybody in this Committee will welcome any steps to improve the organisation of the building industry and develop new methods of production which will cut building costs, but that is a rather long-term development.
I wonder whether at the moment the Government appreciate the size of the problem with which local authorities, particularly those in the blight areas, now have to cope. In his opening speech the Minister agreed that there is a special problem in areas like the North-West. In recognition of this there is to be the work of the regional office in Manchester, which is so supposed to expedite and facilitate a great slum clearance drive in these areas. The Government cannot say that they have discharged their side of the task when they merely authorise local authorities in these areas to go ahead and clear the slums at a faster rate than they have been allowed to hitherto. The Government must face up to the financial cones-


quences which confront the local authorities in these areas.
My local authority in Blackburn has, to its delight, just been allowed to increase its building programme from 200 to 500 houses a year as part of the North-Western slum clearance drive. The Labour council in Blackburn is leaping into action to take advantage of the opportunity which has become open to it, the restraints of Government policy having been removed.
I am sure that there are areas, not only in the North-West but in the Midlands and elsewhere, with an even more catastrophic problem than ours. But even in Blackburn—to take a typical county borough among the former depressed areas as a symbol of the size of the problem we face—out of the 39,000 houses in the town, 25,000 are sub-standard and are due for clearance in the near future—or as near in the future as we can make it. Even with that increase of from 200 to 500 houses a year it still means that it will be fifty years before we have got a Blackburn in which every family has a normal standard home.
What is clearly involved is the more or less rebuilding of the bulk of the town. This is part of the whole problem of making these north-western, one-time depression areas fit to live in and containing enough amenities to attract the industries which we are determined to attract. If one is eventually to rebuild 25,000 houses out of 39,000 it is totally wrong to consider doing that in a piecemeal way. It would be quite wrong to have a bit of slum clearance here followed by another, perhaps unconnected, bit of slum clearance there. It should all be linked with a redevelopment plan for the town as a whole; and this is what the Blackburn local authority wants to do. Indeed, it is already trying to launch an ambitious central rebuilding scheme as quickly as possible.
The sort of urban renewal that is needed in a town like Blackburn is extremely urgent and not only Blackburn, but Manchester, Birmingham and dozens of other places. Blackburn will need a complete structural renovation if the drift of population and industry from the North to the more attractive areas of the South is to be stopped. This means that if we are to have a central redevelop-

ment scheme, coupled with the enormous task of clearing 25,000 sub-standard houses in my area, the local authority must have a vision of the new town that will emerge.
Such an authority must not only look far ahead—and thirty or forty years is not a long time in this context—it must not only have a vision of the new town but draw up plans a long time ahead. Naturally, those plans must be discussed in the town. There must be public and democratic discussions of the kind of town the citizens want to see and the sort of amenities they want injected into it. Thus, the need to plan ahead as far as possible is now an integral part of the new approach of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for on page 12 of his Ministry's Report for 1962 the right hon. Gentleman calls on local authorities not only to co-ordinate their building programmes but to see that their
… programmes must be planned far enough ahead for the builders to have the assurance of continuity of work.
This means that as soon as one starts to talk about rebuilding and redeveloping on this scale one injects an element of uncertainty into the lives of thousands of citizens who do not know what will be the future life of their privately owned houses, businesses or shops.
We have found in Blackburn that because we have an authority which is trying to do a good job, to take a longterm view and to get its plans thought out coherently and far enough ahead, a great new fact of uncertainty has emerged. Has the Minister adequately faced up to this problem? What are the Government prepared to do to meet the consequences on the saleable value of houses, shops and businesses which are affected by this kind of long-term planning for redevelopment?
After all, if one is to redevelop properly and finish up at the end of the day with the kind of city of which one is proud, one needs to include in the clearance drive not only the slums, but some houses which still have a reasonably long life ahead of them; houses on which a lot of money has been spent and in which the owners take great pride. In many cases the owners have made the best of a bad job and have said, "This house will not be rebuilt for a long time so we will do what we can and decorate and improve it


to the best of our ability." Suddenly, they find that, because no one can be quite sure what the remaining life of the house is going to be, when they need to move for domestic reasons they cannot sell their property.
Innumerable constituents have come to see me with urgent domestic problems arising out of this sort of difficulty. Even the announcement of interim plans for development creates a series of personal crises in the lives of Blackburn citizens. There is certainly no desire on the part of the Blackburn local authority to beggar innocent people in this way. Indeed, it wants to deal with them fairly and justly.
I understand that at present a local authority can, if it is faced with the claims or difficulties of individuals arising from its long-term redevelopment plans and discovers that hardship is being caused, help those individuals by buying their property out of revenue. Cases of very urgent hardship can be, and have been, dealt with in this way. However, once one moves into the more rapid tempo of development such as the Minister is urging—and the right hon. Gentleman is saying, in effect, "I want all the slums in the North-West cleared as soon as possible"—new problems arise, for bound to be included, as I have pointed out, are not only slum dwellings but houses with a reasonable life ahead of them.
All this raises the important problem of compensation for personal hardship on a scale which cannot be dealt with out of revenue. The Government must have a national plan for compensating individual owners of houses, shops and businesses who find themselves ruined by the threat that perhaps within five, ten or fifteen years their property will be due to come down. The saleable value of the property disappears, and someone has to do something about that. Life savings have gone into this property.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) talked about how much the Conservative Party believes in the people having the right to own the houses they live in, but the Government are not doing very much to help the individual owner-occupier who is immediately hit by the acceleration of development plans. They have given no lead at all in this matter to local authorities. I agree with the hon. Member that an owner-occupier with a still decent house in the middle

of an area that has to be demolished for proper planning purposes will not have his need met if he is only offered the tenancy of a council house in exchange. He wants to know what is to happen to the balance of his mortgage. Moreover, he might prefer a house of his own. How, then, is that house to be acquired— —

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady's remarks are widely read, and I should not like her speech, by an unintentional inaccuracy, to worry people unnecessarily. The acceleration of redevelopment does raise problems, but I do not think that the sort of instance she mentions is one of them. If one has a non-slum house which is bought out compulsorily, one receives the market value for it, and is, therefore, normally able to pay off any remaining mortgage. I do not deny that there are problems, but the one she mentions is not one of them.

Mrs. Castle: My purpose was to get some indication from the right hon. Gentleman of what the local authorities' powers are, and I am glad to hear him say what he has. I was not trying to provoke him, but trying to set people's minds at rest. My point is that, so far, a local authority has been able to cope with this problem out of revenue, but in Blackburn, for instance, development has accelerated so quickly that the cost can no lancer be met from revenue.
I have made such inquiries as I could through the Library of the House and from the Minister's Department to find out whether loan sanction will be given to local authorities for this purpose. Will the Minister announce tonight that he will give loan sanction to local authorities to enable them to compensate, at reasonable rates, the owners of houses that have to be acquired as part of these slum clearance and redevelopment schemes? I have also tried to find out whether the Minister has ever issued a circular on the subject. I do not think that he has. I would ask him to issue one, so that the policy is clear beyond doubt. I would be grateful if, later this evening, the right hon. Gentleman would be specific about this, because it is the assurance that we want. I believe that he has the legal power, but at present it is a political decision that I


am asking him to take for the sake of my constituents.
One of the great advantages of the Labour Party's policy to set up a land commission to acquire land in these areas of redevelopment is that the commission would be able to look ahead where there is to be this change of user and development and, with far greater resources than a local authority can have, acquire these properties at reasonable rates—rates that would enable the dispossessed person to buy another house elsewhere, if he wanted to.
I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that a local authority may legally do this, but he must also make the finances available. Here, again, I ask him to face the consequences of the much greater scale on which he says he wants to operate. That will put a tremendous burden upon local authorities. In this connection, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a document The Future Development of the North-West, drawn up by the Town and Country Planning Association and containing its proposals to the Minister.
One section of the document states:
It is clear that some form of special planning grant will be needed for the renewal of obsolescent areas, and such assistance is especially necessary for the industrial towns of the North-West. Many of these towns also have a strong case for increased housing subsidies if they are to speed up their clearance and replacement programmes. We recognise that these are matters of broad national policy, but our analysis of the North-West's problems emphasises the urgency and importance of such action in this particular region.
I ask the Minister not only to give us the all-clear to pay compensation, but to give us more money with which to pay it adequately, because in towns like Blackburn it is a gigantic problem.
I link all this with the reference made to the rating system. We are penalising towns like Blackburn, and the citizens of similar towns, on two counts. First, we are failing to give them national help for the renewal of their areas. Secondly, when an additional rate burden is created by these redevelopment plans it falls most heavily on those who have done most to keep their property fit to live in—those who have been the most socially minded.
It has been ironic and tragic for me to go round my constituency since the

rating revaluation and discuss with individuals—humble little people in "two ups and two downs"—why their valuation has gone up. The first question one asks is, "Oh, but did you have a bathroom put in?" If they answer, "Yes," one's comment is, "Then, of course, your valuation has gone up." Those who have struggled to make a decent and reasonable modern home out of some of these obsolescent properties find themselves penalised for their pains by increased rateable value.
It is high time that this nonsense was stopped. It is high time that we stopped penalising those who try to do the most to make our towns fit to live in. We need a root-and-branch reorganisation of our rating system, so that we can put the burden fairly on the shoulders of those who can bear it best.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Of the few points that I want to draw to the attention of the Committee and of my right hon. Friend, the first has already received the very sympathetic consideration of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to improvement grants which, at present, cannot be given because of some technical reason governing the standard that a property must reach after the improvements have been made.
For instance, under the existing regulations, one can put into a house a hot-water system, a proper lavatory and a bath, but if, in the same room that has the bath, there is a sink, the improvement grant cannot be paid. In some cases, this is unnecessarily discouraging people from carrying out improvements which, in every sense except the strictly technical, would bring the property to a condition in which it would provide a reasonable standard of living for those concerned. It is a pity if this is prevented by the technical drafting of the regulations, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is already giving his attention to this matter.
A serious matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister is the question of valuation for rates, including revaluation. It is certainly the case in parts of my constituency, and how general this is I do not know, that if there are two identical properties in


identical settings, one of which happens to be owned by the council and the other by the occupier, it is the practice of the valuation authorities to place a higher rateable value on the one which is privately owned than on the one owned by the council, although both enjoy identical amenities and although, structurally and aesthetically, they are identical.
This causes a considerable feeling of injustice among many people who have put their savings into a privately-owned house and have saddled themselves with heavy mortgage payments only because they are unable to obtain a council house and then they are told that they must pay higher rates because an alleged stigma attaches to living in a council house. Whether there was such a stigma at one time I do not know, but I do not believe that any such stigma exists in 1963. There is properly a stigma attaching to living in a council house on a rent which is grossly subsidised by other people who are worse off than oneself if one has sufficient income to pay a fair rent, but I do not accept the proposition that there is, or there ought to be, any stigma attaching to living in a council house as such.
I would, therefore, plead strongly with my right hon. and hon. Friends to give instructions, possibly through, the Treasury, though I am not sure of the channels on this point, that properties which have the same facilities and which are otherwise similar should have the same value for rating purposes attached to them, whether they be in local authority ownership or in private ownership. If this were done it would remove the considerable sense of injustice and grievance which afflicts a large number of people.
There is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend, and not for the first time, because he probably has it much in mind. This is the problem of what is known as a seaside holiday resort. The characteristics of a seaside holiday resort is not only that it is at the seaside and is a holiday resort, but also that a considerable number of elderly people live there. Many, if not most of them, live on fixed incomes, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) would

wish to inform the Committee. They are above the supplementary pension level in total incomes and they do not come within the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act. Therefore, when they are met with a major increase in the actual money which they have to pay out in rates they are in difficulties. I hope that we shall not argue about the product of the rating valuation and the decrease in poundage.
When a man of 81, with a wife of 80, living in a small bungalow, is faced with an extra £20 a year out of a gross income of £340 a year, this is a hardship—it is not an inconvenience. This is by no means an unusual or even an unrepresentative case. The age of 81 may be unrepresentative, but that is certainly the only unrepresentative thing about it. In many of these resorts there is no alternative industry and, therefore, there has not been an off-loading of the greatly increased rate burden from the private householder to industry. There is also considerable resentment at the proposals of my right hon. Friend to alter the basis of the general grant and the deficiency grant paid to such areas, which I understand, will aggravate the situation rather than ameliorate it.
I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about this and then take really effective action on it. It cannot be said that the answer for these people is to move to a smaller house. Many of the properties which have received the highest escalation in rateable value are the smallest, the argument being that because the properties are smaller they are more convenient, and because they are more convenient they are more desirable and, therefore, should have a higher rateable value. As no alternative accommodation is available, it is no use saying to the people concerned that they should move to alternative accommodation which is less highly rated. It is not there to move into.
I am interested to note that after a short visit the sole representative of the Liberal Party who has been here this evening has now withdrawn, to leave the usual Liberal representation in the debate.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Do not spoil it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am sorry, but it was a great improvement on the debate


on rates last April, when there was not for a moment a single Liberal Member present. However, today we have had a good debate, notwithstanding the Liberal absence.
Lastly, I should like to draw attention, as a number of hon. Members have already done, to the problem of land shortage. I do not pretend to know the answer. If we have something like the 1947 legislation, with development charges, then the compulsory purchase procedure would have to be used, since nobody has any real incentive to part with land.
Having noticed, as I expect everybody else has, that despite an extremely hard-working Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who, to put it mildly, is fully loaded with decisions which he has to take on planning cases at the moment, I would point out that if, in addition, the Minister answerable to Parliament had to take decisions on four or five times as many cases, because of disputation of compulsory purchase orders, I do not know how the Parliamentary machine would cope with the situation. I do not believe that it coped with it very adequately in the past.
There is the further element that a system of land purchase being practised by compulsory order strained the integrity of local authorities more than a little, although this was so long ago now that many people have forgotten it. With these few observations, I shall now listen with interest to the observations of other hon. Members.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in one or two points. The hon. Member mentioned the question of improvement grants and I think that we on this side of the Committee would agree that it is desirable to remove the anomalies in these grants. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has mentioned this on many occasions in connection with the provision of baths.
However, the main problem with improvement grants is to get the landlord of the rented property to install the improvements. I would mention, to show how great that problem is, the figure

quoted by the Minister of Public Building and Works today when he said that 200 baths had been installed per week.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Four hundred a week.

Mr. Silverman: All right—four hundred a week. On the basis of 400 a week, it will take about 150 years to install baths in all the premises which require them.

Mr. James Allason: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the Minister say that he would very shortly double that, which, at least, brings the period down to 75 years, which is an improvement, and no doubt we might do better than that?

Mr. Silverman: That is still a long time for these buildings to be left without a bath. It shows the complete failure of the improvement grant policy because so many landlords will not put the improvements in.
Very much more needs to be done, particularly in the twilight areas where the amenities should be improved, to give the local authorities power to deal with the situation, if necessary, by compulsory purchase where the amenities are not there or by some other method to ensure that they are installed and the landlord is compelled to do the work.

Mr. John Hollingworth: The hon. Gentleman refers particularly to the twilight areas. Do not the twilight areas already have the facilities to which he refers, and is not the real problem there over-population?

Mr. Silverman: The problem in the twilight areas is not only one of population. There are amenities there, but, frequently, they are not sufficient. If there are three or four families living in one house, one bath may not be enough and one toilet certainly is not enough. It is necessary, therefore, in the twilight areas, for the local authorities to be given greater powers, either of compulsion or of compulsory purchase. Although hon. Members opposite would not like that, something must be done. Progress is far too slow.
The general matter I wish to raise is the building of houses by local authorities. A local authority has three problems, the


availability of land, the availability of labour—just now, this is not a great problem—and the availability of finance. The Minister suggested that finance was not a bottleneck today, but I think that it is becoming a serious bottleneck.
First, the availability of land. If I mention Birmingham as an example, it is not that I wish particularly to make a constituency point; it is a problem which we have in common with other large cities and conurbations. For the City of Birmingham, the Minister has proposed two new towns. I do not know when they will be completed. It seems likely that the first trickle will not come in for six or seven years and that it will probably be another ten years before any significant contribution is made to the housing of Birmingham's overspill. Moreover, all this depends, bearing in mind the record of this Government—if by any chance they happened to be returned to power—on the possibility of a financial crisis which gives them justification to cut back on local authority house building.
Birmingham's available building land in running out, The only large pocket of land is one large area at Castle Bromwich where, as the result of a fortunate accident, a vacant airfield has become available. Within the next four or five years, the resources of land for new building in Birmingham will run out.
Slum clearance, which Birmingham is pursuing at an accelerated rate, does not assist in this problem, but, on the contrary, makes it worse. When an area of slums is cleared, only a proportion of the people there, not much more than 50 per cent., can be rehoused on the same site.
I am not attracted by the proposition made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), who suggested that we should build at higher densities. I have recently seen examples of building at higher densities and I am appalled at the idea of re-creating the atmosphere of the tenement. Working-class people, like others, do not want to be pushed one on top of the other; they want a certain amount of space to live in. I should strongly resent and oppose any attempt to increase the densities to uncomfortable

levels. Today, if one builds high, one must allow sufficient land around the buildings. One should not build high and, at the same time, put the blocks of fiats or other housing accommodation too close together. I hope that the Minister will do nothing which will result in the re-creation of the old sort of tenements to be found in London and Glasgow and simply re-create the slums which have been demolished. That is not the solution to the problem of land shortage.
Birmingham is energetically negotiating with other towns under the Town Development Act. This will all take a certain amount of time. Moreover, we want to be assured that the planning of industry will go together with the planning of new towns or the development of old towns. So far, we have not had this assurance. It is essential that the industrial development certificates should be given in the new areas in order to provide for new industries to go there, because, of course, if the industries do not come the people there are not prepared to take the population and the schemes will be still born; but, more than that, there must be positive planning and consultation between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade. Industry and housing must go hand in hand.
All these schemes are, to a large extent, schemes for the future. The Minister will have to consider again the provision of land on the periphery of Birmingham for building purposes. Wythall, after being accepted by the Minister, was turned down. Something will have to be done to deal with the immediate problem of rehousing and to cater for the people who have to work in Birmingham and who want somewhere to live. Redditch may, in due course, help to some extent, but even Redditch is somewhat too far away and much too remote in time to help in the immediate problem.
Now, finance. Until now, finance has not been a bottle-neck but, as I said, it is beginning to become so. To a greater and greater extent, local authorities are having to build high, and it costs a lot of money to build high. Even allowing for the special subsidies given for high flats, the burden upon the local authority is still very great. I inquired about some flats which are being built in


Birmingham. The economic rent of those dwellings, taking into account the cost of building, the rate of interest, maintenance and all the rest, comes to about £340 a year. Although Birmingham is a prosperous city, very few families there can afford to pay a rent anything like that.
We should bear in mind that the applicants for these flats and the people who are being granted them are not young childless married couples, with both partners working and receiving good wages. For the most part, they are people who have been on the register for a long time and living in hardship, with the wife having to stay at home to look after the children. This idea of wealthy municipal tenants able to afford any rent does not begin to apply to them. The majority of them can afford to pay little more than they are paying at present. To deal with this problem by increasing their rents is quite impractible.
After the local authority has spent the subsidy that it receives from the Government, it still has to provide additionally more than £60 or £70 a year in respect of each flat which is built.

Mr. Hollingworth: I am interested in the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given for an economic rent of modern flats. I am able, through a housing association, and paying the full cost of land just outside the city, to build two-bedroom flats, with no profit and including management costs, to let at a rent of about £4 10s. a week.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that there are also rates.
The municipal tenant is interested in the total cost to him of his living accommodation. Probably management costs and obviously site costs are higher within the city. The question of the cost of land has been dealt with already. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that every flat which is built imposes an additional sum of £60 or more a year on the local authority, after taking into account the subsidy. Obviously, if 2,000 flats are built every year, there will be an additional burden every year on the housing revenue fund. Who will pay that?
The burden can be covered in one of two ways. We can ask either the general ratepayer or existing municipal tenants to bear it. It would be very difficult to put it on the rates. Therefore, the local authorities are asking municipal tenants to pay it, and municipal rents are steadily increasing. Obviously, there is a limit to the amount that municipal tenants can pay. This trend cannot go on.
The plain fact is that there will be a crisis in housing finance unless the Government carry out the review which has been promised. This applies, as has been said by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), to the whole sphere of local government finance. There will have to be a review of the system and, pending that, a very substantial increase in the Government's contribution to local government services, particularly housing. If something does not happen very soon, local authorities will be severely restricted. They are bound to say, "We cannot put up these houses because we cannot go on increasing the rents. On the other hand, we dare not put this increase on the rates." Clearly, there should be a much more substantial contribution from the Government.
I say this to those who talk about a realistic municipal rents policy. A large number of municipal tenants, certainly the pre-war tenants, are completely self-supporting. They are actually making a contribution to the housing revenue fund. The Government subsidy which is allocated to these houses is being used to finance other housing. It is not fair to go on increasing the rents of these people in order to deal with fresh housing developments, and the only way to deal with the matter is by the Government giving a much more substantial subsidy. I hope that in the review the Government will seriously consider the question of housing finance and housing subsidies because the present structure is clearly inadequate.
We hear a great deal about wealthy municipal tenants. There may be a few here or there, but, broadly speaking, people who are being allocated houses today have been waiting on the register for many years and have suffered discomfort. They could not afford to buy private houses. If they could, they would have done it years ago. They would not


have suffered the discomfort which they have suffered for years. In a city like Birmingham, which has 45,000 people on its register, a person has to be in very great discomfort and to have lived in overcrowded conditions for many years before he can get an allocation from the register.
I ask for two things: first, a review of the Government's land policy. We want a national land policy for housing. Secondly, I ask for a complete review, not only of local government finance in general, but of housing finance in particular.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) made a most interesting speech. I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not follow his general remarks, because I wish to return to the very vexed subject of rating reform. We have heard a good deal about housing and I, like so many other lion. Members on both sides today, subscribe to the view that it is vitally important in this day and age. But the whole question of rates is also vitally important and I think that we should now consider very seriously some aspects of the rating problem particularly since we have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter in a general debate for a long time.
I emphasise at the outset that my remarks are meant to be constructive, and that I do not intend any personal criticism whatever of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for whom I have the highest regard. I consider, with respect, that he is doing his job at the Ministry with tremendous energy and imagination. But this is a general problem which is not confined to one Government Department. The problem remains with us and will continue to do so, although we have passed the immediate crescendo of a few weeks ago when revaluation came into force.
I took up the campaign for rating reform which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) instituted last year and we got under way again at the turn of the year. I found that it was well supported in the House and I was gratified by that, but I was amazed at the tremendous support which it received outside from members of the

public—members of my own party, of the opposition party and people with no party at all. The letters poured in. I personally had over 500. Some of my hon. Friends supporting me in this campaign also had hundreds of letters.
Most interesting evidence, not only of difficulty, but of real hardship, was revealed by these letters. Some of it is very valuable. If it could be distilled and submitted to any inquiry which takes place, it would be extremely valuable in coming to conclusions. As a result of my experience in that campaign, I feel more than ever before that there should be a complete revision of the rating system as we know it. The whole concept of rating must eventually be changed.
There is no easy panacea for this. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) say that the Labour Party had advocated this for a number of years. I can only say that it has done it sotto voce, because until quite recently we have not heard a great deal from the party opposite about rating reform.

Mr. MacColl: If it was done sotto voce, the hon. Member could not have heard what the Division was about in 1960 when he voted against our Motion to have an inquiry.

Mr. Smith: I accept that I voted against that Motion. Even so, I do not think that the Labour Party has campaigned the country, calling for rating reform. Both sides have, perhaps, been lax in stressing the need for general rating changes.
Generally, however, this is not a political matter. One can make and score effective party points, but, overall, the problem is with us, irrespective of whatever Government is in power now or in the future. Next week, we will be having the local government elections. A large number of candidates, of all political persuasions, will go forward, as I and, I suspect, other hon. Members did when entering local government, full of hope and charity and with a zest to reform the spending activities or the local council.
Those candidates, when they are elected, will find themselves hamstrung right, left and centre and will have little opportunity of achieving reforms. How-


ever good or circumspect they are, they still will not be able to keep down expenditure because of so many nationally-negotiated, reasonable awards for pay increases, and mounting expenditure on one side and the other. Many of these people will be extremely disillusioned after holding office in local government for probably only a few months, let alone years.
The Government were right to go ahead with revaluation. It was necessary. It is right that industry should be brought into line. Even though I am glad that revaluation has worked out reasonably well, however, and that the increases in poundage may not have been as sensational as some people anticipated, we are still faced, at the end of it, with the question whether the system is right.
After all that we have seen and read over the last few months, I consider that the rating system is definitely out of date. It worked well in days gone by, but it has become old-fashioned and clumsy, purely because of the massive expansion of services over the whole of the local government front and of the social services. This expansion incurs a tremendous growth in general expenditure. Expansion is good, and we all welcome it, but due regard must be paid the whole time as to how it is to be financed. This, surely, is one of the cardinal principles behind local government legislation.
I should like the whole system to be revised after a high-level, impartial and expert inquiry, possibly of the calibre even of a Royal Commission, appointed to examine the views of all the experts, to take as much evidence as possible and to try to ascertain the various aspects which can be presented, not purely from political sources, but from many unbiased ones, too. I welcome the appointment of the committee of inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Minister announced a few weeks ago, but I regard it as too limited in scope and consider that it should go much further. I am still hopeful that in due course my right hon. Friend will have an extended inquiry with wider terms of reference.
I should like to have three main themes running through any high-level inquiry into what can be done concerning the rating system. First, we should ascertain whether the existing distribution of the

rate burden is fair and, if it is not, how it could be spread more equitably throughout the community. Secondly, we should ascertain whether education, which forms the major part of all local authority expenditure, should be transferred wholly to the national Exchequer, or whether major elements of it may be further subsidised on a national basis. Thirdly, I should like the inquiry to examine thoroughly whether alternative or additional sources of local revenue are available and, if so, how they would stand up if they were used generally within the local government system.
Redistribution of the rate burden, which is, perhaps, paramount among those three suggestions, has been referred to obliquely by some of my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite. There is a good case for some form of redistribution of the burden. Today, the size of a person's house is not necessarily an indication of his wealth. We all know that, with the housing shortage as it is, it is not always easy for somebody to move into smaller accommodation or other accommodation within a certain area.
No account is taken of the services used by an individual ratepayer. He need not go for a walk in the local park, he need never borrow a library book and he may never have a swim in the local baths. He might be childless, yet he pays exactly the same whack of rates as the person living just down the road with a large family and enjoying all these services.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nevertheless, he would be fortunate indeed in some towns if he was not fined for car parking.

Mr. Smith: That is a fair point. Even so, this is a particularly unfair aspect of the rating system. It is particularly hard upon elderly couples.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has referred to people living at seaside resorts and how difficult it is for them when they find a £20 or £30 rate increase during the year. This is something which many of us, if in good employment, could accommodate. We may moan about it, but we can absorb it within our personal finances. But to an elderly retired couple who have not budgeted for massive rate increases an extra £20 or £30 a year sometimes makes the difference between living


respectably or in poverty. Their expenditure on rates is one of the highest items in their personal budgets and is constantly growing.
I say this in the context that rates are bound to go on increasing as the years go by. On the other hand, many householders get off extremely lightly and probably enjoy to the full all the services which are provided by local government. Certainly, they get off lightly in comparison with struggling householders. Many of these people are young and high-wage carriers. Sometimes, they are sons and daughters who contribute to the comparatively large joint income of their family and only one small element from the household goes out in rates. This, surely, is unfair in comparison with families who do not have a large joint income.
There is also the question of lodgers and council house tenants, who, in some cases, are quite heavily subsidised. I know that a rate element is taken into account when a lodger pays his rent to his landlady or landlord; and council tenants also pay an element of rates in their rent. Nevertheless, their overall contribution must be particularly small when compared with the contribution that so many small householders make under the existing system.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Member suggesting a local Income Tax policy or a means test upon every man's income according to what services he uses?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is anticipating me; I was coming to that. I say frankly to her that I have no magic panacea for this problem. It is not my duty to try to give the exact answer. That is why I want a full inquiry.
I am, however, prepared to take up the hon. Lady's challenge. I certainly do not want a means test against these people. There should be an examination of ways of making a fairer distribution of the burden so that more people in the community can pay towards the cost of rates. It is, surely, only equitable and right that everybody who enjoys local services should pay something. It is entirely fair that a person living in a big house should pay more than a person living in a small one, but there are some who escape from paying hardly anything, and this is a bad thing. There

is a great deal of genuine resentment at the present time at these inequalities. This resentment is growing and will continue to grow.

Mr. John McKay: Is it not a fact that on the present basis of rating, millions of people with insufficient incomes are expected to pay heavy rates but do not have to pay Income Tax because their means are so low? Is it not a fact that, despite low incomes, they must pay the same amount of rates as people with three of four times their income?

Mr. Smith: That is a very valid point. It really goes to the heart of the question whether or not account should be taken of ability to pay rates.
There is a case for transferring some services to the national Exchequer, or for their being further covered by various grants from the centre, like the personal health services, police, ancillary services and even the administration of justice. All of these being financed from the centre could relieve the rate burden. But the biggest relief could come in education, which now takes about two-thirds of all expenditure by local authorities in many areas. This is entirely disproportionate with the amount spent on other services.
In due course we must face the fact that other services will suffer if this disproportion increase's. This must be borne in mind more and more by the Government. We know that expenditure on education will go on increasing. Only this week, the Minister of Education announced that the figures today have reached massive proportions. We are spending about £1,000 million a year on education, and this will increase in the next few years. We are constantly coping with increased salaries for teachers. Whether the increases are disputed or not, the teachers are getting them. A proportion of this has to be borne by the local authorities.
One argument adduced against education being transferred centrally to the centre is that this would take away local control and that there might not be any effective check on Whitehall excesses which might arise. Another argument is that so much money would be saved locally that many local authorities would feel that they had greater scope for


spending sprees in other directions. I believe that that argument over-dramatises this aspect. I do not believe that it would happen.
I speak as one who is a member of a county education committee. Even though we prize the idea of local control, we are very circumscribed already in many respects and we are told where we can spend and how we can spend. Although there are certain improvements we can achieve, generally speaking we would save a great deal by the transfer of finance to the centre. I believe that we could still retain local control because we could set up organisations like the regional hospital boards.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is a fascinating discourse, but the argument against that proposal is contained in the democracy of local government. Unfortunately, what we have in the National Health Service now are self-perpetuating autocracies appointed by the Minister from professional people with no lay members. That would be the great danger if the education service followed that pattern.

Mr. Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I will not be drawn into debate on the efficiency of regional hospital boards. I was drawing a parallel, suggesting that we might have some form of education administration like that. I am certainly fully in favour of local representation and it must be properly elected. But even if the finance came from the Exchequer, I think that local control could be achieved.
If we cannot transfer the whole of education to the centre—and it would be wrong, probably, to do it at one fell swoop—I would hope that we could take individual elements into central financing. Certainly, the teachers' salaries element should be taken from local authority costing.
In the inquiry I have suggested, I should like other sources of local revenue to be taken into consideration. For instance, the idea of a local income tax, which the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has mentioned, should be examined. The question of a State lottery could also be considered. We should not bold up our

hands in horror at the idea. We see betting shops all over the place and they seem to be fully accepted by the public. A State lottery might help a great deal to increase revenue for these services.
Despite this, there must be full and adequate consideration of the various other schemes which could be canalised for the revenue, either for the replacement of elements of the present rates or as valuable sources of additional revenue. I think of such things as entertainment taxes, local service taxes and motor vehicle taxes. All of these are worthy of consideration, although, of course, they might all be "shot down" on close examination.
We have had previous rating inquiries, but there has not been the fullest consideration on all these points. I think that eventually we must take account of the ability to pay rates. This tremendous problem will grow, and with the new and imaginative hospital plan this will add considerably to local authority financial burdens.
There is no easy, blanket solution. Action will, have to be taken in a comprehensive way. It will have to be done very carefully and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in not being rushed into precipitate action. This is an important aspect of the development of Britain in the 'seventies; a subject which has caught the attention of the Government in an imaginative way. In the 1970s we shall have to have a fairer form of local taxation, a system viable, realistic and in keeping with a modern approach—an approach which I see in so many other directions from my right hon. Friends who direct the Government so realistically.

Mr. Robert Cooke: What would my hon. Friend do if more money were found for these services by the central Government? What would he do about the powers of local authorities?

Mr. Smith: I thought that I had dealt with that point. I am a great supporter of local authority powers, but I believe that by moving the financing of education some of those powers would inevitably, be removed to the centre as well. I do not think that this would be crippling, however. There would soon be a working arrangement with effective local govern-


ment control—far more effective, I am sure, than some people imagine.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I ask the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) to forgive me if I do not deal with the matters he raised. I want briefly to make three points to show that the Government's policy, far from easing the tragic housing situation, is making it worse.
First, I should like the Committee to consider the strange and disturbing happenings in the Lea Valley in North London. I quote a typical case, that of Mr. Ernest Pallett, a small farmer who owns nine acres in this area. This land was valued at about £500 an acre, a total of £4,500, until the announcement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government a couple of months ago that there was to be some encroachment into the green belt, and that houses might be built in the Lea Valley.
Overnight—and I mean literally overnight—his holding of £4,500 became worth £80,000. I assure the Committee that this is not guesswork, because within ten days Mr. Pallett received eight offers, each of more than £72,000. He is holding out because the experts advise him that the price may rise still further. These offers have been made by land speculators who in turn will sell the land for building purposes. With this fantastic rise in the price of the land what will it cost to rent one of the houses built there?
I understand that in the Lea Valley there is one man who is lucky enough to own 90 acres. Overnight his property became worth £720,000.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What is his name?

Mr. Allaun: I do not want to mention his name, but I assure the Committee that I have no personal interest in the case, though I wish I had. Without lifting a finger, the value of his property has soared to £720,000.
I am also informed that certain gentlemen were sniffing around the Lea Valley inquiring about the land in the area before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement. I wonder whether there was a leak.
The main point that I wish to put before the Committee is not on this question of the encroachment on the green

belt. The point at which I am driving is that it is because the Government have removed controls from building speculators that this kind of thing is possible. This is a perfect illustration of the land racket which is spreading throughout the country. When, in 1959, the Government removed the last of the controls on land prices, the price of land soared to such an extent that in Birmingham today it averages £500 per flat or house. This figure has to be paid before a single brick is laid. The London County Council recently built 43 flats at Roehampton. Again, before a single brick was laid the cost per dwelling was £1,500, which means roughly 30s. a week in rent for the land alone.
I am a Labour man, not a yes-man. I do not agree with everything the Labour Party does, but this kind of nonsense will be stopped by the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Party in his recent speech at Cardiff that land will be taken under public ownership if it is to be used for building purposes. This will mean that if the value of the land rises through no effort on the part of the owner, but through the efforts of the community, through the growth of population, and through the building of new industries in the area, the increase in value will be given to the community which created it. Owner-occupiers will be protected. I maintain that public ownership is the only real way to deal with the scandals that are taking place at the moment.
Next, I ask the Committee to consider the Rent Act. It may be said that this is "old hat" and that nothing more can be said about this five-year old Act. On the contrary, I maintain that the full impact of this Act is only now beginning to be felt, and perhaps I might quote two examples to show what is happening in the back streets of our great towns and cities.
A friend of mine, who is a gardener, works for the parks department of one London council. His wage, including overtime, is 10 guineas a week. After stoppages he takes home under £10 a week. He has a wife and young baby, and because of the latter his wife is unable to go out to work. His rent for one bedroom, one living room, and a scullery is £4 10s. a week. That leaves less than £5 10s. a week for food, coal, lighting,


and clothing for this family of three. I asked him how he existed, and he replied, "My wife is a good manager". She needs to be if she has to manage on £5 10s. a week. This is an example of what the Rent Act is doing to ordinary, decent, people.
The second example comes from my constituency, though doubtless similar cases abound in other great cities. A block of 30 houses has been bought by a textile merchant. They are typical two-up and two-down houses, which we know so well; the "Coronation Street" type of house, with no bath, no hot water system, and no inside toilet. Before the introduction of the Rent Act in 1957, the rent of these houses was 9s. 11d. a week, so hon. Members will have some idea of the type of house about which I am talking. The Act permitted these rents to be raised to 14s. 11d. a week. The real evil of the Act, however, lies in the fact that when a change of tenancy occurs, because of death or for some other reason, the landlord is free to do what he likes, and how!
The position now is that an old-age pensioner living in one of these houses is paying £3 a week. A young married couple, both aged 19, pay £3 10s. a week and have to do their own repairs. Another couple moved in last July at a rent of £2 10s. a week. They asked for repairs to be carried out, but met with no success. Instead, the landlord raised the rent to £3 a week so they left. The house has been re-let at £3 11s. a week, and I am told that the owner is now asking for £5 a week for identical houses. I would not be surprised if he were to get this figure because of the great hunger for houses.
With 320,000 houses a year becoming affected by "creeping decontrol", it means—and I do not think that this has been realised—that for the first time since 1915 the British people are to be completely deprived of any protection in their homes. Many people are unaware of the way in which the first rent restrictions were introduced into this country. It happened in 1915, when the landlords were raising rents throughout the country, even for the wives of soldiers who were fighting on the Western Front. Great pressure was brought to bear on the Government, to introduce rent controls,

without response. Eventually, the engineers of Clydeside decided that if these restrictions were not introduced by the Government, Clydeside would stop work. Mr. Lloyd George, who was then Minister of Munitions, caught the midnight train to Glasgow, met the shop stewards in the morning and promised them that legislation would be introduced. He kept his promise. I only wish that the present Government would introduce similar protection by rescinding their Rent Act. One of the men who was most active in that campaign usually sits in the place that I am now occupying—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. W. Reid).
I believe that the Rent Act is the "Landlord's Charter". It is turning even the slums into highly profitable investments. It is an astonishing thing that London property companies are now invading the provinces and buying up whole blocks of slum houses. Some are not content to wait for the tenants to die or to move; they are threatening them, and, in the case of those who do not know their rights, are bluffing them to get out.

Mrs. Slater: It ought to be pointed out that if those same tenants apply to have their rent reduced the landlord has power to turn them out.

Mr. Allaun: Yes. Once a house is decontrolled the tenants are completely at the landlord's mercy.
I know that there are honourable exceptions, but my experience of most landlords is shocking. Recently I sent the Minister of Housing details of some of these cases. One concerns an old-age pensioner who had been living in his house since 1913 and paying his rent regularly. He was sent an eviction notice by registered post. When I raised the matter with the property company concerned it promptly said that it had "made a mistake", and withdrew the notice. But there is another case which I have yet to report to the Minister, and which also concerns an old man—he is 75 years of age—who had been quite illegally threatened with eviction. When I took this case up I found that the landlord was a Belgian investment company, with an address in Antwerp, which I am prepared to supply to the Committee if necessary.
It does not matter to me whether a property company is British or Belgian, or comes from Borneo; a bad landlord is a had landlord. The point is that if Continental property and investment companies are buying up housing property in the back streets of Lancashire towns there must be something extraordinarily lucrative about the business.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is a common market.

Mr. Allaun: I fear that this Government will never do anything to hit the landlords' rents or the financiers' profits, because it is not in their interest to do so. In the House of Commons, 58 Members are directors, ex-directors, or managers of property firms. There has been an increase of 14 in the last eighteen months. Fifty-four of those 58 Members are Conservatives. As for banking and finance houses, which are doing nicely out of the high interest rates on housing, 62 Members of the House of Commons are directors, ex-directors, or managers, and of those 58 are Conservatives—although I do not see many of them sitting here at the moment. These figures come from the latest edition of "The Business Interests of Members of Parliament" by Andrew Roth.
Some people say that the Rent Act has failed. They are mistaken. The Rent Act has succeeded—in transferring about £187 million a year from the pockets of the tenants to the pockets of the landlords. We need only to look at the prices of shares of property companies to see that. On 24th January the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told me that the total incomes from rents rose from £763 million in 1956 to no less than £1,176 million in 1961. He said that caution ought to be used in dealing with these figures because they included other items. Fair enough. If we examine the Blue Book, "The National Income and Expenditure" for 1962, there is a breakdown of these figures. It shows that income from rent in the personal sector—consisting mainly of rents from privately-owned dwellings—rose from £374 million in 1957 to £506 million in 1961. Income from rent going to companies rose from £100 million to £155 million. Those figures added together reveal that in four years there was an increase of £187 million in income of that character.
What do the Ministers say when we raise the question of the Rent Act? They

say—we frequently hear it in this Chamber—"if there were no Rent Act, there would be no houses to let at all. Landlords would put up the houses for sale." That is balderdash. What is the use of having houses to rent if the rent is so extortionate that working people cannot afford to pay it? I maintain that the Rent Act encourages owners to sell the houses, as they can get doubled, trebled or quadrupled prices because the rents are now doubled, trebled or quadrupled.
I was delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition announce recently that the next Labour Government will stop any further decontrol of houses on a change of tenancy, restore security to those tenants who /lave become decontrolled and set up rent tribunals to deal with rents. I hope that these tribunals will make sweeping reductions. The Rent Act is anything but old stuff. It will be a vital issue at the municipal elections next week and, I believe, at the General Election. My bet for the date for the General Election is June, 1964.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hon, Members opposite had better make a note of that.

Mr. Allaun: Lastly, let us have a look at the terrible effect of interest rates. The 3 per cent. increase, virtually doubling the interest rate, means that on a £1,800 house the repayment cost has risen, roughly, by £5,000, or 32s. 6d. a week on the rent. It annoys me to hear people talking about the cost of building labour or even of building materials, which is a flea-bite compared with the £5,000 increase in interest charges on a single council house.
This weekend I spoke to a member of the housing committee of the Manchester City Council. She told me that the charge for new three-bedroomed council flats in Manchester is £2 7s. a week. Based on twice the gross annual value. But because of interest charges, and after the Government subsidy has been paid, there is a loss of 30s. a week on each new council flat. The only way in which the council can recoup this money is by spreading the increase over all their council flats. This means that tenants who may have been living in and paying rent on an old council house for 40 years are having an increase in their rent and this is leading to a great deal


of disquiet and anger. In many cases throughout the country the anger is mistakenly directed against a Labour-controlled council which has to impose rent increases, rather than against the guilty men in Westminster who are using the council as scapegoats for their policy.
The chairman of another north-west housing authority told me that, after allowing for Government subsidy, there is a deficit on a new council house in his town of £60 a year for sixty years—that is the repayment period—in other words, a deficit on each house of £3,600. This forces councils to raise the rents and, maybe, to raise the rates as well.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: What is the average rent actually paid in that particular instance?

Mr. Allaun: It is approximately £2 7s. a week, but, if they were to charge the full economic rent, it would bring it to £3 17s. a week. How does one expect working people to pay rents of £3 17s. a week when, for engineering labourers in my part of the country, the basic rate is under £10 a week and many workers are unable to increase it working overtime? It is hypocrisy for the Government to urge local authorities to expand their building programmes when the Government raise interest rates to such an extent that councils are forced to cut their programmes. We all know that the number of council houses now built is half what it was in 1954.
Referring to improvement grants, on page 15 of the Report the Minister states that the Parliamentary Secretary opened in Sheffield last November an exhibition of demonstration houses in which baths, hot water and inside lavatories had been installed. That was very commendable. It is then reported that within three weeks 22,000 people visited the demonstration houses and another 6,000 visited the exhibition. That proves the point we have been making for a long time, that there is widespread longing for these improvements to be introduced. Following that exhibition, how many landlords responded and introduced baths to the houses they own? I wager that the number was under 100 because that has

been the experience in other parts of the country. Where landlords will not play, the only solution is for local authorities to take over the houses and do the jobs themselves.
I conclude by recommending the Minister to study the proposal by the Labour Party for compulsory purchase orders not on an individual scale. We all know that C.P.O.s are cumbersome weapons and that individually they are very time-wasting instruments. It is proposed by the Labour Party that when landlords do not comply, by asking for and applying the grant and introducing baths, there should be a single compulsory purchase order for the whole improvement area. The job would be very much expedited in that way.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), at the beginning of his speech, raised a very serious problem. He gave the example of the Lea Valley, but it is a problem which arises all over the country and must give every thoughtful man considerable worry. It is the problem of the difference between the value of building land and the value of agricultural land.
This is a desperately difficult problem. The hon. Member's party tried to solve it by the 1947 Act, which was found to be quite hopeless and would not work. That finally disappeared by the efforts of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary after the death of Mr. Pilgrim, which brought home to people how regrettable it is suddenly to serve compulsory purchase notices on individuals and not to give a fair price for what they believe to be theirs. Although it has resulted in this great difficulty of substantial increases in the price, I am certain that it is right to give fair compensation.
I see that the Labour Party has now given up the idea of trying to tax the increment and has gone over to full-scale nationalisation of all land to which planning permission is granted. I am not clear how this will make it any more useful to the person who is to acquire the land and dwell on it afterwards. Is the Labour Party to charge the full price of the land, that is, the true price? The hon. Gentleman gave an example in Birmingham and said that it cost £500


a house. But this is sheer economics. It is not that anybody is profiteering. It is the fact that land in the middle of Birmingham is very valuable.
What are hon. Members opposite going to do about it? Will they sell the land, perhaps I should say rent the land, at any rate dispose of the land, at a cheaper rate than the true value? If they do that they can, of course, be selective and some happy people would get something for less than it is worth. Alternatively, are they going to charge the full value, in which case it will not be of any assistance to those people whom they are appearing to help in fighting the high cost of land? I do not think that the Labour Party's proposal is the right one. I agree that it is a very serious problem and an affront to this country that by the mere fact of being granted planning permission there is suddenly an enormous increase in someone's personal income.
The hon. Member for Salford, East was not entirely fair when he gave statistics of the increased rents that were paid between 1956 and 1961. He was highly selective. He took the year before the Rent Act came into force and five years later. If he had taken 1939, he might have remembered that there was virtually no increase in rents between 1939 and 1956. Taking those years, and remembering that in general things cost about three times as much as they did before the war, the figures are not so startling. They would be rather startling the other way. If on the rents which were paid in 1939 there is a rise of only up to 50 per cent. in 1961, that is not something which can be shown to be a horrible scandal. Surely the Rent Act should have come in many years ago. It would not then have created hardship by the Government having to wait, putting it off so long after the war and then doing what it was suddenly necessary to do.
The hon. Member discussed improvement grants. We have to put this in perspective. I am, naturally, in favour of improvement grants and the maximum use being made of them. At the same time, it is ridiculous to say that every house should here and now have the improvement grant system applied to it, because we well know that unless there is fifteen years' valuable life in the house, the improvement grant cannot be applied.
We are rebuilding houses, many are being pulled down and many new houses are being built. The baths population in the country is therefore rising considerably. It is not a question of there being a shortage of 4 million baths which will continue for seventy-five years, as the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) suggested. This problem is solving itself, although I agree that the use of improvement grants is a good way of tackling it.
But not everybody wants his house improved. I can quote cases in which tenants have refused an improvement because it meant a loss of accommodation. If a bath is put into the house it may well mean that another room is lost. Moreover, the tenant does not want to pay the increased rent which follows from the improvement grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned that under present regulations the bath must be in a separate room. It might be helpful if the bathroom could be combined with another room, for example, the kitchen. There are baths designed for this purpose. It then might be easier to get people to accept the installation of baths. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about that tonight. He knows that it is some time since I wrote to him on the subject being that this should be done.
Next, I want to discuss rating. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), who suggested that if only we had an inquiry into rating wonderful new means of local government finance would be found. We have heard these suggestions before. This is a vast subject, and local government finance involves colossal sums. Running lotteries and getting fees for motor vehicle licences will not solve the problem, for those sums are quite small.
There are two ways of tackling the matter. Either we can have an entirely fresh form of local taxation, such as a local Income Tax, or we can transfer substantial parts of the expenditure to the Government. There was a suggestion in the Daily Telegraph that it would be simple to have a local Income Tax. The local authority would decide how much rate it wanted to collect and would notify the Inland Revenue, who would


work out how much would have to be collected from the local inhabitants and would add an additional Income Tax assessment. The Income Tax authorities would be the rate collectors. But I have calculated that the average increase in Income Tax would be 3s. 6d. in the £. For some authorities it would be very much higher and for some it would be lower. People have been thinking in terms of 2d. and 3d. on the rate of Income Tax, but the figure required would be much higher.
Of the taxation in this country, about 50 per cent. is raised in direct taxation and 50 per cent. in indirect taxation, rates being one part of indirect taxation. An objection made to rates is often that some people can afford to pay but that the rates also fall on others who can afford to pay no Income Tax at all. But these people are already paying 50 per cent. of the taxation of the country by other means of indirect taxation. If we suddenly shift an enormous element of taxation away from indirect taxation and on to direct taxation, all we shall do is to put up the rates of taxation to such a height that they would be punitive and there would be a disincentive to go out and earn money. An increase in the present standard rate of Income Tax by up to 3s. 6d. in the £ would not continue to bring in continuing returns. Inevitably, there would be diminishing returns.
Because of their short memories, people have the problem of rating a little out of proportion. In 1955, rates were 26s. in the £. Since then they have in general increased by only 5 per cent. In 1956, there was revaluation. Rates came down by one-third. Thereafter, they continued to rise. This is a highly unsatisfactory way of dealing with rates. It gives rise to much trouble. There was a means of changing the rate burden in 1956. It was taken by the Government, for very good reasons. The effect was a terrific reduction in rates. Nobody thanks the Government for a reduction in rates. The reduction is merely accepted. Then there was an increase in rates. When there is an increase in rates, there is fury.
The present position is a slight increase over the 1955 position. We cannot go on having continual increases in rates on this scale, which is 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. per year. We have expanding ser-

vices. We need these services to expand, but we cannot ask the people to pay an increase in rates of 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. year after year, with no further hope of reduction. All derating has now been abolished. There is no hope of finding other rating revenue now from industry. Everyone is fully rated. Therefore, from now on the only possibility is a steady increase of 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. a year, as against an increase in personal incomes of 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. per year. This is intolerable.
I do not want to see a bulk transfer of some services as has been suggested. If that happens, we shall go back to the 1956 procedure. There will be a colossal reduction in rating, but it will start to creep up again and everybody will still be disgruntled with rating. My solution is to deal with the problem through the block grant. This merely keeps in tune with the increase in expenditure. I want to see it do more. I accept that, if personal incomes rise by 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent., rates can perhaps rise by 3 per cent. a year. Anything over that must be carried by the Government. This is a fair way of dealing with the problem. It leaves local authorities responsible far their own expenditure. It will take us many years before the central Government carries 75 per cent., 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. of the burden and local authorities are no longer fully responsible. This is a way of dealing with it.
The present system is not satisfactory for those on small fixed incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton may be interested to know that such people do not live merely at the seaside. They are scattered all over the country. This is a very serious problem for them. They have no means of increasing their income. They are now on the same income as they were before the war, perhaps, and do not get the old-age pension. For these people the situation is desperately serious. It is very difficult to define them. In general, they must be the older people. I suggest that they should be let off paying for education.
When the 1956 Local Government Act was going through the House the Government took the view that it was not necessary to make any allowance under the general grant for increasing populations. They took that view on the basis that there was no proof that the


expanding populations carried higher rates. We have now had experience of this. For example, in Hertfordshire our rates have risen 8 per cent. above the average for the rest of the country, solely because of the expanding population. Far this reason we want to see the formula for the general grant changed to take account of expanding populations as well as increased rates from the whole of the country, for which, I am sure, a firm policy is necessary.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: Today's debate has been extremely interesting throughout. Of particular interest to me was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) who kept us all attentive as he gave a thorough survey of the problems of local government. What I particularly liked about his speech was the knowledge he displayed of his constituency, a knowledge which many of us envy.
It is an admirable thing in a debate on local government that such a knowledge should be displayed. A local government debate should provide an opportunity for hon. Members to bring their special local problems into the common discussion and, out of that, we may formulate policy. I hope very much that the hon. Member for Rotherham will wish to continue to join the select band of local government fans who never tire of talking about rate deficiency grants, the general grant formula, and so on.
It was nice to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Public Building and Works back again in fields into which he used to stray. However, I thought that it was an astonishingly bad piece of stage management. It is extraordinarily difficult to understand the Government's sense of timing which led them to decide to put that right hon. Gentleman on to the esoteric subject of industrialised building. This is especially so after one has heard the speeches that have been made by hon. Members on both sides, for the whole atmosphere has been one of concern, worry, anxiety and frustration. Since the Government should have anticipated that that would be the kind of atmosphere demonstrated in the debate, it is difficult to understand

why the Minister of Public Building and Works should have taken that line.
It meant, of course, that we did not have the Minister of Housing and Local Government telling us what was in his mind in moving his own Estimates, a rather odd thing. It would not be quite fair to say that it was Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark but in view of the presence of the Mnister of Public Building and Works one might say that it was a case of the grave digger hogging the whole of the first act, so that we did not hear Hamlet's soliloquy:
The time is out of joint; O cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!
The right hon. Gentleman, rather cheerfully and jovially, appeared to be encouraged by what was happening in almost every direction and I thought that this was not the moment to introduce that sort of note.
After all, whatever one may say about the causes, the facts stare one in the face. We have just had the new housing returns showing that new completions are down by nearly half in the last quarter. It may be considered that the bad weather had a lot to do with this, but that is not a time to be complacent about it. Completions, improvements, standards and everything else seem to be going down. The school building programme is being drastically cut. Despite this, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were interesting and it would be a pity to dismiss industrialised building offhand. It is a very important matter.
It is most desirable to look at its administrative implications in terms of getting large orders for big areas of housing, and the like, but it would be a mistake to start thinking of housing entirely in terms of great sweeps of buildings. There is a great deal of most important painstaking infilling to be done in built-up areas. But I welcome what he told us and I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, again following Hamlet:
Well said, old Mole! canst work i' the earth so fast?
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) quoted the section of the Report on improvement grants, and asked what was happening to them. The answer is very simple—they are all down. He asked what had been the effect of the circular issued in August urging greater action in


this connection. The answer is that local authority grant went up in the last quarter, but baths and showers, food stores, hot water supplies—all went down.
The only one that went up was water closets. I envisage the conference at Chequers last weekend, with the Government gazing in blank alarm at the collapse of their whole policy. The Common Market has collapsed, Beeching is up the spout, spies galore all over the country, teachers in revolt, the Guards in mutiny—and then, in the middle of it all, the right hon. Gentleman says, "You needn't worry, Prime Minister—water closets are buoyant". I give him full credit. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at about water closets—they are a very important aspect of housing—but what I complain of is the Government's attitude in this debate of completely ignoring the depth of feeling there is throughout the country and in this House over what is happening in local government, and what is being done about these problems.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned rates. We have not yet had anything at all from the Government on that subject. I noticed on the Order Paper this afternoon a Question asking whether the names of the members of the new committee of inquiry into rates were available. It was one of the subtle Questions that do not get answered orally, and with which the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are so good at dealing. Can we be told who is to be on that committee, or when it will report? Will the committee's report affect the current financial year, or will the results of its inquiries be of importance only in the next financial year?
The keynote on rates throughout has been delay and dither. We have had debate after debate on the subject. We were asking for art inquiry in 1959. We had a debate in 1960 which has already been referred to, in which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), who is now such a courageous crusader in this sphere, was notable for voting against having an inquiry. There was an occasion on a Friday last year when it was the Minister of Public Building and Works who was the villain of the piece. He was put up to refuse an

inquiry, when Conservative back-benchers begged for one.
Then we had a document that purported to show the effect of the new valuations and, in many respects, the impact was underestimated. A comparison of Cmnd. Papers 1663 and 1982 shows that in many respects they are very different, the one being published before revaluation, and the other afterwards. By this failure to tackle these problems we have got ourselves into an appalling mess which everybody seems to realise except the Government. There is hardly a voice to be heard in or outside the House of Commons which does not express realisation of the seriousness of the present problem.
The right hon. Gentleman must work out some kind of quick answer to this problem. In the long run there is considerable thinking to be done about the source of local government revenue. We have discussed local Income Tax today and other forms of raising income or by transferring services and so on, but these things are bound to take time. Nobody really knows what is the incidence of rates. People talk a great deal about rates not being paid by the unmarried lodger, that they are a burden on the landlord or the tenant, or whoever it may be, that people with large families live in highly-rated houses, because they need several rooms, and so on. All these problems require a careful and scientifically conducted survey. The incidence of local taxation should not be all that difficult to work out.
This should be the basis of any serious thought on the problem, and this is why it is quite impossible for the Opposition to think out right schemes without the facts and the basis on which to work. My experience in London is that fiats seem to be one of the biggest causes of concern, and that council flats in the expensive central areas of big towns are having the most alarming increases of rates. Here is a particular problem which needs to be examined carefully by the Government.
What the Government have to look at is not simply, as the Home Secretary used to tell us, only at values and not at increases in expenditure, because what matters to the ratepayer is the total amount he has to pay. He has his income distributed in a certain way and he has


not much left over. He is accustomed to pay so much Income Tax, so much repayment of mortgage, and so much in rates. What matters to him is the occasion when he is suddenly faced with a large increase in that amount.
I noticed a survey in the Financial Times the other day of three central London boroughs, Westminster, Marylebone and Paddington, which indicated that the averages of increases were about 50 per cent., or a little more for residential ratepayers. If the average had gone up by something like half, then to balance out the average many must have gone up by a great deal more. This is a problem which the Government should look at.
I do not know whether it is the answer, but one thing which is worth looking at is the possibility of easing the shock and the burden a little by having a transitional period. When the grant system is changed there is a transitional period before local authorities have to adjust their accounting to the new situation. It might well be the answer that people who pay more than 50 per cent. more should be reduced to a half or less for the first year, and that over the quinquennium there should be a slow transitional adjustment so that at the end of the period they would be paying the full amount.
This would give people time to plan and prepare and to consider the whole impact of the problem. This would mean that the rest of the rate burden would have to be distributed over the other ratepayers, or that the Government might make a grant of a certain amount to a local authority. The Government might say to the local authority, "If you are prepared to have a transitional scheme of this sort, we are prepared to meet it with a contribution towards the cost to the rate fund." Whatever be the answer, urgent action is required and it is no use our waiting until we have solved the final problems.
As this is a Supply debate, it is perhaps an appropriate time to say something about the administrative problem and the need for the Ministry and the Government to be quick to encourage local authority action and initiative. I had a case in Widnes quite recently. I do not give it as an example because it happens to come from Widnes, or because it is a big one, because it is not. But it is a very good illustration of the

annoyance and frustration which conies to local authorities.
In December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his scheme for dealing with unemployment. Among other things, there was to be provision whereby local authorities in certain areas, including the North, would be allowed to begin small capital works up to £15,000 provided that they were started by the end of the last financial year and were finished by the end of the summer. In other words, these schemes were meant to be quick and comparatively small schemes but designed to deal with some aspect of the urgent problem of unemployment.
The Widnes Borough Council picked up a scheme which it wanted to undertake, namely, the building of a new mortuary. It would cost just under £10,000. It was not something which required permission. There was no grant involved except perhaps a very small amount on the rate deficiency grant. The plans were prepared by the borough architect, who is an experienced professional man with a good deal of experience of different types of building, and they were sent to the Ministry for loan sanction.
One would have thought that, if even there was a case where the Ministry might say, "All right; go ahead quickly", it was this. But what happened? Back came a letter from someone who made several comments. One was that, if the door were put round the other way, there would not be such a good view into the mortuary. Another was that, if the height of the windows were raised, and the upper part thrust over, people would not be able to look in to see the fun at the post-mortem. The third comment was that, if the number of visitors was likely to be small, one lavatory for both male and female visitors would be acceptable, but, if there were likely to be many visitors, consideration should be given to providing lavatories for both male and female.
This was a plan prepared by a qualified professional architect who spends his life designing and building things.

Mr. D. Smith: Not mortuaries.

Mr. MacColl: A skilled professional man knows his limitations and knows


where to go for advice, and this is precisely what had been done in this case.
In fact, if one turned the door round one could not then get the bier, on which the corpse would be, into the mortuary. Secondly, the Home Office pathologist who had been consulted said that he must have as much light as possible for modern post-mortem techniques, so there was professional advice on that. Thirdly, the medical officer of health, who is the authority on public health matters, had estimated the likely number of visitors and advised that one lavatory would be enough.
I am not arguing about a small or trivial matter. The point is that all the people concerned, who have their other jobs to do, stopped their other jobs—this was a letter from the Ministry, which had to be taken seriously—and they got in a huddlle together to think out the answer which had to be sent back in order to obtain loan sanction. When one remembers what was said by the Working Party on Local Government Manpower in 1950 and 1951, one wonders how far we really have come in recognising that local authorities are adult organisations, that they have their highly qualified professional staff and that—this was one of the things said by the Working Party—one should not try to do the job oneself but should leave it to the professional man on the spot to make a decision.
I mention that not to grind a constituency axe, but simply to make the point that, if we are to get a drive on in municipal building and municipal capital investment, we must have more confidence in local councils.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I refer to a recent case in which everything was left to the local authority? The cost of the new Devon County Council building went up from approximately £600,000 to £1·6 million between the estimate coming out and the end of the building.

Mr. MacColl: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to advise his constituents to vote Labour at the next Devon County Council elections.
There is a need for a great deal more co-ordination between different departments. I still hear complaints about the sterilising of sites. One of the effects of the cuts in education programmes is likely

to be that, in carrying out new housing development, no one will know whether a school will be built at the right time. All the efforts to get local authorities to look at these problems as one and to phase the development are wrecked because a particular school is knocked out of the programme. Meanwhile, the site is sterilised because no other building can be done on it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us something about what is going on concerning overspill and when building is likely to start on the latest new town. No one seems to know whether building the Runcorn new town will commence in the next two or three years, or whether it will be five or six years before building starts.
I came across an interesting example of the implications of overspill the other day. Some of the nicest constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) have come to live in Halewood. They are in a very awkward financial situation because they are old people who have been moved out of the City of Liverpool into the country. In some cases their rent is slightly lower and in some cases probably a little higher. They have lost their privilege tickets on the city transport. All their friends, relations and interests are at the other end of the city and they now have to pay the full fare. This is a sudden increase in their outgoings.
It may be said that this concerns the Ministry of Transport and has nothing to do with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. But it does concern the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, because that is the kind of human problem which hits people involved in these big housing moves. It is the need to co-ordinate and to get people to look at all these human problems as one which is vitally important. It is not the city corporation but the Ministry of Transport which is at fault, because it will not change the regulations applying to these privilege tickets.
Finally, I turn to the question of land prices. What my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said about the Lea Valley scheme is a typical example of the fact that the inevitable toll of all these things, whether they concern the development of highways, such as we heard about at Question Time today with regard to Slough, or


anything else, is increased land costs. The Government have done, and are doing, absolutely nothing about this.
This is not the place to defend the Labour Party programme on the matter or the time to defend the Labour Party's views. What I ask the Government is: what is their alternative? It is no answer to wreck the existing arrangements, to put no others in their place and to say that nothing else will do. That is complete defeatism by the Government in facing what everybody outside knows are the real problems. That is the indictment that one has to make of the Minister.
There are thousands of worried people who are trying to run their local councils, grappling with these difficult problems without any encouragement or help on the important questions. Some of them are Conservatives, who are worried because they are going to lose their seats. Some of them are Socialists. They have the problem of trying to develop the social services, but are faced with high interest rates, high land prices and the difficulty of getting quick decisions from the central Government on matters like loan sanctions, all these varying things combining together to create the feeling of frustration which is rotting local government.
I do not know what bright ideas we will have from the Minister when he winds up the debate. All I can say is that it is a little offensive that we should solemnly have this debate, based on a Government statement, introducing Ministry of Housing and Local Government Estimates, which consisted of a genial discourse upon certain esoteric methods of building construction and with very little and remote relationship to the problems of local government as they are felt in the country.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I join the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in congratulating the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) on an excellent maiden speech. He showed a remarkable amount of self-confidence for a beginner, and we look forward to him speaking much more, particularly on these subjects, as his experience develops. The hon. Member said that he would only pose questions. He posed them remark-

ably effectively and he so far forgot himself occasionally as to give a few answers. I was particularly glad to note his fervour on the subject of baths for all, with which I thoroughly agree.
We have listened to an amiable speech by the hon. Member for Widnes, but on one occasion he touched me on the raw. The hon. Member's mortuary story was very galling. I am sure that there are at least two sides to it, as there generally are when one goes deep into one of these allegations.
The background to today's debate needs a moment of explanation. By common agreement, the country has had, under both parties, large investment programmes since the war and yet, as we look around, we can all agree that there remains a great deal to be done. What has happened to all this investment? Why have we not made better headway against the commonly agreed needs of modernising the country? It is, of course, the fault of the character who looms behind all our speeches but has not appeared much in today's debate, namely, the healthy phenomenon of a rapidly rising population.
It is this which causes us, like Alice, to have to run fast to overtake the need, let alone to eliminate it. There is also the fact, studiously ignored by hon. Members opposite, that with the rising population has, mercifully for most of the population, gone a rapid and sustained rise in real incomes, also.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Widnes teased my right hon. Friends and me for choosing to open the debate through my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. Hon. Members opposite must, however, recognise that one of the main common factors to all the Votes which are under discussion is the performance, effectiveness and productivity of our construction industries.
If they teased him because what he was talking about lay largely in the hands of the construction industry, they misunderstood what he was saying, which was what the hon. Member for Fulham rightly said was his responsibility, namely, the changes that the Government seek to bring about so that the construction industry may expand to its true potential. That is what my right hon.


Friend's speech was about, and it was an excellent opening to the debate.
I shall try to deal with most—I regret that I shall not be able to cover all—of the things mentioned by hon. Members. I shall do so under the headings of housing, planning and rating before turning to the more general themes which have emerged. Firstly, I deal with the housing aspect.
The hon. Member for Fulham trotted, as he always does, alertly through the housing field, pointing out what needs to be done. We share with him the recognition that the time is ripe for further developments, but, to continue the series of quotations from Hamlet. I would prefer
… meet it is, I set it down …
In other words, there is a White Paper pending. The Committee will not expect from me tonight the revelation of the further developments we intend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) in what I am told was an excellent speech, spoke of a particular enthusiasm of mine—twilight area renewal. As the Committee knows, that is a vast job which is waiting until each town and city makes good its remaining shortages and eliminates its slums; for it will have to be tackled on a really large scale. Meanwhile, as I have said before, this very complex problem needs to be studied, and I am glad to say that the first of the pilot studies I have undertaken to inaugurate was given some publicity last week and it happens, by pure coincidence, to be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fulham.
I must confess that though I agree with much of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), I thought that he was a little sanguine in saying that private enterprise can help with slum clearance. But where it can help, and I am sure he is absolutely right here, is in just those twilight area redevelopments which will be such a massive task.
I thought that he gave a very sensible warning in saying that we should not have too many industrial systems but should try to choose early which are going to be successful so (that we can get all the benefits of cheaper unit costs

which come from quantity. If there is general stress on the need for enlightened producers and contractors, there is just as much stress on having enlightened clients as well.
I was absent at the time, but I have been informed of their speeches, and I do agree with the spirit of what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about getting on with improvement grants, but again I must ask the Committee to await the White Paper.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was on to a good point in saying that if we were to accelerate redevelopment there would be all sorts of consequential problems such as those resulting from the alteration of expectations of property owners. The problem is so complicated and so many aspects are involved that I cannot answer her now, but I will write at length to her and discuss any publicity she may like to have for the letter.
The hon. Member for Fulham and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) rightly drew attention to the thoroughly unpleasant and disagreeable findings of that admirable body Family Service Units. It is true—and no Government spokesman seeks to deny it—that finding rented accommodation to let in London is a desperately serious problem, but we on this side firmly and sincerely believe that rent control would make this problem worse and not better. In the recent White Paper on London the Government have undertaken to set up—and this will happen very soon—a Committee to study the condition of housing in London, both public and private, to see whether anything more needs to be done to protect those who can least look after themselves.
In setting up this undoubted problem, hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed to mention the contribution that local authorities can make. There are in London over half a million local authority dwellings and these are ones to which the poorer people should first be able to have recourse. I agree that at the moment there is much to be done to make life more tolerable for the poorer people seeking homes in London.
I turn now to the planning side, and I should like to deal with the general allegations made by the hon. Member for Fulham. He teased my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and said that within the Government there was no close consultation on matters connected with planning. This is nonsense. There is the closest consultation between all Departments concerned on all planning matters. Each decision made may be subject to criticism, but the decisions are made as a result of the closest collaboration, and in the case of the proposed railway closures I shall be in the closest touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport under both my hats, that is the Welsh hat and the planning hat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South expressed strong views about Euston, and I shall note what he said. He also spoke about offices in London, and, though I am by no means complacent about this, I think that he underestimated the possible effect of the decentralisation of offices, and of the relief that may be achieved by the location of offices bureau.
I come next to the difficult subject of rating, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) on showing a mastery of this subject and an understanding of the many related implications which it is a pleasure to hear from behind one, because one can follow a policy only if the implications of changes are clearly understood. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) spoke more briefly on this subject, and I shall take note of what they said.
It is bound to be difficult, and we have seen this in rents as well, when we emerge from a period when some factor, in this case rates, and in another case rents, has been frozen, and the pattern of rents or rates is disturbed, making, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said about another subject, expectations on which people have based their lives suddenly become false. This emergence from the frozen domestic rate period that lasted for about 24 years was bound to reveal sore spots. This is why the Government have undertaken to appoint a committee—and I

should be able to make a further announcement about this before the end of the month—to study the impact of rates on individual households.
I would, however, remind the Committee that the taxpayer already bears 52 per cent. of the cost of local authority services. Industry and commerce are now fully rated and bear 24 per cent. of this cost, and that leaves householders to bear just under a quarter of the total cost.

Mr. MacColl: Will this committee have any effect on householders this year?

Sir K. Joseph: I have made no pretence about this. The committee will not be able to report in time to make any difference to householders this year.
I was going to complete the analysis of the burden of cost by saying that by common agreement, in general, though there are differences about some of them, local authority services are expanding healthily, and the only criticism that we get in many fields is that they should be expanding even faster. These services, expanding, healthy, and needed, have to be paid for. In answer to my hon. Friends, it would be possible for the Chancellor to shift more of the cost from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. We do not have to assess exact categories. If the Chancellor wanted to transfer more of the cost he could do so, but I point out to the Committee that this would be a clumsy and indiscriminate way of helping those ratepayers who are hurt, since again, by common agreement, there are a large number, to my mind a great majority of the country, to whom rates are not a burden. The problem is that there is a burden—a severe burden but an unknown one, on what I believe is a relatively small proportion of the country. And it is exactly the effect on the sort of person that is suffering most by the impact of rates after revaluation that the committee is intended to assess.
In rates there is always the familiar story of the hon. Member for Fulham hankering after a specific grant. But the taxpayers' share has nothing to do with the question whether grants are paid in a specific or a general way. And the freedom of local authorities from Whitehall's petty control, and financial respon-


sibility and discretion for local authorities are far more likely to be served better by the general grant than by specific grants.
I now turn to the main criticism emerging from the Opposition, and it is a quite legitimate one, namely, how much better the Socialists would perform with their techniques, were they in office. This comes down to two or three subjects. I shall deal with them seriously, as they were put forward.
First, there is the question of a special rate of interest for housing. They say that housing would be very much helped if rates of interest were 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., instead of the present market rate of just under 6 per cent. We all agree that those people who cannot afford their own houses must be helped by one means or the other. Our chosen instrument is the subsidy, which we are prepared to revise if necessary. The Opposition's chosen instrument is a special interest rate.
We believe that help in housing should be confined to those who need it. There is no magic in the idea of a special interest rate. It will not produce more houses. It is merely one way of giving financial help, and in our view a very poor one, because it is so wasteful and indiscriminate. It helps those who do not need help as much as those who do, and it hides the extent of the help given, therefore hiding the true cost of housing and distorting all the economic incentives. Somebody has to pay, whether help is given by subsidy or by an artificial interest rate, and if the money is found by taxation it should not be wasted by an indiscriminate use through a special interest rate, when it could be used for some other purpose.
Furthermore, if the Socialists introduced a special interest rate together with the genuine interest rate, they would rapidly find themselves forced to use physical controls, as they were during their last period of office. We cannot reduce the cost of housing by this dodge. That is why we stick by the subsidy and, in answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), to revise it when necessary.
At the moment, finance is not the limiting factor on housing. In many areas council rents are still very low, and local

authorities can increase their resources by raising those rents. Many local authorities do not even have rent rebate schemes of any sort, but their rents are still well below twice the gross value.
The second allegation of the Opposition concerns the cost of land. This is a serious subject, and I shall treat it seriously. Land is expensive when it is scarce, and when demand is high. No juggling about will alter that basic economic fact. We offset the disadvantages of this by our subsidy arrangements, which are threefold. There is the ordinary housing subsidy, the additional housing subsidy for high buildings, where we have to use expensive land and a high rate of density, and a third rate to help local authorities to purchase expensive land.
The Opposition claim that they can cheapen land by the land commission method, but they can do this only by buying the land well below its market value if they are going significantly to cheapen the cost. Since vendors will not voluntarily sell land below the market value, this means that the Opposition's idea must involve compulsory purchase on a massive scale.
But that is not the end of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead so rightly said. The moment we produce a bargain by offering to sell or let land below its real price we are faced by the difficult and ticklish problem of deciding to whom to sell or let it. We therefore have to have an allocation scheme, which raises all sorts of difficulties. The lucky people who get the land below its proper price can make a killing by making profit on the discount they receive when buying the land. And there is a by-product. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite should face the implications of their programme. I have read their policy thoroughly.

Mr. Skeffington: The Minister is not describing it very well.

Sir K. Joseph: I am describing, not the policy—indeed, dear me not—but the implication which emerges.
Another implication is that, were this policy adopted, there could be no further owner-occupation as we know it. Let me make it plain straight away that the Opposition do not intend to touch existing owner-occupiers. But they


would not have any further owner-occupation in the sense that we know it. There would be no freedom to buy and sell houses and land. There would be no freedom to own a house and the land and, in due course, when one had paid off the cost, to pay no more rent. It would be leasehold only.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South was quite right when he remarked that the Socialists do not seem to care about owner-occupiers. The hon. Member for Fulham did not even mention them in his opening speech. Let me repeat that there will be no interference under this plan with existing owner-occupiers. I do not want to misrepresent it. But under this plan there will be only new owner-occupiers of houses who will not own the land, and therefore as the lease on the land conies to an end they will have to pay some sort of rent.

Mr. M. Stewart: It is explicit in the statement of the policy that we do not propose to apply this to a site on which an owner wishes to build a house for his own use. He is simply excluded.

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, but I have a different part of the text:
The Land Commission could help by leasing plots of land to some owner-occupiers"—
"leasing" plots of land, that is the key word—
on specially favourable terms.
And this from a party— —

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman, instead of reading out a selected version, study the passage on page 20, which he has ignored because it does not meet his argument?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not seeking to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. But the fact is clear. They will lease land. At a time when hon. Members opposite are clamouring about the injustice of leasehold in Wales, they propose to impose leasehold on people who want to own their own houses in England.

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Stewart rose— —

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Stewart: The Minister ought not to stick at that point. He is deliberately misrepresenting it, or else he has failed to read the policy. Hon

Members who are interrupting me have not read the policy. On page 20 it states:
We can ignore, too, small sites not offered for sale on which the owner simply wishes to build a house OT garage for his own use.
They are excluded from the operation of the policy.

Sir K. Joseph: What about estates that are developed now? The bulk of owner-occupied houses are sold to people by the development of estates. Socialist proposals under this policy would involve massive compulsory purchase below market value and no further owner-occupation in the sense that we know it. So the great scheme for cheapening land prices turns out to be a choice between confiscation and a confidence trick.
All these complicated devices are not the product of evil men. The Opposition sincerely want more houses. But hon. Members opposite will not work with economic forces. We are told that the local authorities are held back because of interest rates and because of finance. Nonsense. These are not the obstacles. The obstacles are land, labour and, in some local authorities, lack of management drive. Land is to some extent my responsibility, and in the last 18 months the Government have announced five additional new towns for Merseyside and the Midlands and foreseen the second generation of new and expanding towns for Londoners.
Let us turn to the management drive of local authorities. Assuming the land, local authorities are raising their programmes where there is need for more housing, and with present levels of interest rates and subsidy, look at the splendid results to be produced by two admirable Socialist councils, Salford and Gateshead. Despite all the difficulties about which hon. Members opposite have accused us and these so-called obstacles, the Gateshead Council is going to put up its average housing programme from 220 over the last three years to 1,000 per annum over the next three years. I am paying tribute here. In the case of Salford, instead of 360 per annum in the last three years, it is proposed to rise to 1,500 per annum—and all credit to them.
Under a Tory Government, despite interest rates and all the other allegations,


we have had a massive simultaneous rising programme in all fields of social investment, the highest record programme of investment this country has ever seen—in all fields simultaneously. "Ah", say the Socialists, "but we would do better." Why look into the crystal when you can read the book? I would not look back to 1950 just to point at the housing programme. One should not look at these things in isolation, but 1950 was five years after the war and it was the year in which the late Mr. Bevan said that the housing problem would be solved. We should note that at that time the Socialists had everything which they said was necessary—complete State domination, all the controls, interest rate at 2 per cent., a development charge and virtually no owner-occupier houses being built. In fact it was a Socialist paradise.
What did they build? Virtually not a road, yet we are spending £130 million this year on roads; certainly not a hospital, but we are spending £54 million on hospitals; certainly not a university, but we are spending £39 million on universities. The same story is told in every field. In education it is double what they were doing in real terms, in sewerage and water it is three times as much, and in electricity it is three times as much. It was not only that in 1950 they did not even quite manage to build 200,000 houses whereas this year we shall start at least 320,000, but what the Socialists proved conclusively was that their panaceas—with all the power in their hands and everything which now they clamour for—did not work.
What they did produce with their artificial interest rates and their forest of physical controls was devaluation and political disaster for themselves. How strange it is at this time of year to see the Socialists clothed in all sorts of strange costumes. The hon. Member for Fulham at Question Time this afternoon was smugly cheering on from the sidelines those who object to the courageous and necessary programme of local government reorganisation being undertaken by this Government. Indeed he does well to cheer because he well knows his own party would flinch from any necessary reorganisation which might be unpopular.
At this time of year to find the Socialists and the Liberals posing as the rescuers of ratepayers seems almost like farce. Both the Socialists and the Liberals, so notably free with their promises about public money, have no right whatever to try to take credit for the vague promises they make when it comes to rates. We all have to recognise that higher rates are the logical outcome of the policy that we are following and that is pressed upon us daily from the other side of the House. More money is being spent on education, on health and housing. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite, least of all at this time, to claim that under their policies there would not be at least equally high rates and tax burdens to be borne by the citizens.
They have not had a single useful idea about redistribution of this burden, but they delight in rejoicing when we courageously finish with the distortion; when we put an end to the distortion and bring back rating to a standard and rational basis in which householders, industry and commerce all have their share.
The difficulty with this sort of winding up speech is that one is so keen to show the Opposition the error of their ways that one might appear for a moment to an onlooker to be complacent about our own performance. In fact, of course, we recognise that there is a very great deal to be done in all these fields. For my own part, there is a great deal to be done on the housing front. We have never sought to disguise from the House or the country that because of rising population and rising standards, and despite the massive programme the Tories have carried out now for twelve years, there remains much to be done.
The further developments on the housing front we shall be announcing in a few weeks. We shall not hesitate to make the changes and further developments that are necessary. What I hope the House will recognise, after the careful scrutiny I have given to the two solutions proposed by the Opposition, that is, an artificial rate of interest and a land commission to so-called cheapen land prices this is, in fact, a massive operation of confiscation coupled with the extinction of owner-occupation in the future. What I hope the House will


recognise are the following simple propositions: Socialist panaceas would not build a single extra house; Socialist panaceas would destroy the future of owner-occupation as we know it; Socialist panaceas add up to shifty, shifting and vote-catching double talk. In the light of today's debate, I think that the Socialists had better take their panaceas away, revise (them yet again

as they have so often in the past, and leave us to get on with the job.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, That Item Class VI, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 288.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, John


Albu, Austen
Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Frederick


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Balrd, John
Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)


Barnett, Guy
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Oliver, G. H.


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
O'Malley, B. K.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oram, A. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A, V.
Oswald, Thomas


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Padley, W. E.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leice.S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bowen, Rederic (Cardigan)
Hoy, James H.
Parker, John


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paton, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Peart, Frederick


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, R. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, George
Probert, Arthur


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Proctor, W. T.


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn.A.Craoch (Wakefield)
Randall, Harry


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Darling, George
King, Dr, Horace
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Ross, William


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, Arthur


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, N.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacDermot, Niall
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mclnnes, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, Thomas


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Eric
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stones, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, Archie
Swain, Thomas


Gaipern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Marsh, Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Taverne, D.


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milne, Edward
Timmons, John


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, Frank


Gunter, Ray
Moody, A. S.
Wainwright, Edwin




Warbey, William
Willey, Fredreick
Woof, Robert


Watkins, Tudor
Williams, D, J. (Neath)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Weitzman, David
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Zilliacus, K.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)



White, Mrs. Eirene
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitlock, William
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Short and


Wigg, George
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.


Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, R. E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, Peter


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy


Allason, James
Elliott,R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lagden, Godfrey


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Emery, Peter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Atkins, Humphrey
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, Sir Edwin


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Leavey, J. A.


Barber, Anthony
Fell, Anthony
Leburn, Gilmour


Barlow, Sir John
Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Foster, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bell, Ronald
Freeth, Denzil
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gammans, Lady
Lovers, Walter H.


Berkeley, Humphry
Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bidgood, John C.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mac Arthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaren, Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Godber, J. B.
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N,Ayrs)


Bishop, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Slack, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Gough, Frederick
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)


Box, Donald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macpherson, Rt.Hn.Niall (Dumfries)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Brewis, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Sir John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Brooman-White, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, B. J.


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harvey, John (WaltHamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hay, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Camphell, Rt.Hon.SirD. (Belfast,S.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morgan William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hendry, Forbes
Morrison John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, Mrs. Sveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P, S.


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hobson, Sir John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pace Graham (Crosby)


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.


Cole, Norman
Hollingworth, John
Pearson Frank (Glitheroe)


Cooke, Robert
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Peel, John


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Peyton, John


Cordle, John
Hornsby-Smith, Ht. Hon. Dame P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Corfield, F, V.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Costain, A. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Coulson, Michael
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Dame Edith


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pott, Percivall


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Crawley, Aidan
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastieigh)


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crowder, F. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Pym, Francis


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Halt Green)
Rees, Hugh


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


du Cann, Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)







Rodgers, John (Sevonoaks)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Roots, William
Talbot, John E.
Walder, David


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Russell, Ronald
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick


St. Clair, M.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Scott-Hopkins, James
Teeling, Sir William
Webster, David


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, William


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Skeet, T, H. H.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Smithers, Peter
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wise, A. R.


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wood house, C. M.


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Turner, Colin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stevens, Geoffrey
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woollam, John


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tweedsrrtuir, Lady
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, J. A.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vane, W. M. F.



Storey, Sir Samuel
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vickers, Miss Joan
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Finlay

Original Question again proposed.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East) rose— —

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EGGS

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
This Order, which is made under Section 1 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, revokes and replaces the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957, as amended in 1960, in so far as that Order related to hen eggs.
It gives effect to changes in the guarantee arrangements for hen eggs which were decided upon at this year's Annual Review and were announced in the White Paper following that review. I do not wish to weary the House with all the details of the past arrangements of the guarantee, which is paid to the British Egg Marketing Board. But the drawbacks of the old arrangements made it apparent over the years, and our experience of these arrangements has been sufficient to convince us that, despite the complexity and, perhaps, in part because of them, the system was not working too well and that changes were required.
For example, the use of the conventionally estimated market price could lead to fairly considerable changes in returns to producers, irrespective of the level of the guarantee; and, conversely changes in the guaranteed price were not necessarily reflected in changes in producer's returns.
Moreover, we have been faced by a situation in which, despite a series of cuts in the guranteed prices, production has been rising more quickly than demand, causing the appearance or threat of very low market prices and heavy calls upon the Exchequer. For a number of years we have been virtually self-sufficient in egg production and repeated references have been made in White Papers after Annual Reviews to the threat of this over-supply position. In fact, for most of last year, 1962–63, the market was undoubtedly over-supplied from home production and, although the Board removed large quantities of eggs from the shell egg market for breaking out and manufacture, prices were extremely low.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Is my hon. Friend saying that there was over-supply on home production?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, at that time there was the danger—indeed, the position—of over-supply. As I said, the Board removed a considerable quantity of eggs from the shell egg market. If it had not been for a recent check, largely due to heavy slaughtering in consequence of fowl pest, there might have been even more formidable surpluses.
Because of the situation that has existed over the past few years it was natural for us to consider the possibility of some kind of standard quantity system analogous to the one we have for liquid milk—another commodity in which we are self sufficient. I need hardly say that this is wholly within the concept of the Agriculture Acts. Indeed, I noted that the noble Lord who was responsible for the 1947 Act said about the new arrangement on 27th March in another place that there seemed little or no sense in adding to the volume unless there was a market, here or elsewhere, at an economic price for the excess. He went on to observe that the National Farmers' Unions had agreed to the proposal. This is, of course, true. The unions have accepted both the principle of the scheme and its various details, although we have agreed with them that there should be a review of its operation during the course of its third year.
It would not be practicable to operate a standard quantity system for eggs similar to that for milk because the guarantee for eggs relates only to eggs which go through packing stations, and the proportion of these to total production varies from one year to another to an extent that would be significant.
We have, therefore, adopted a parallel approach which provides for what is called an "indicator price." This is a price that the Board might be expected to receive for its eggs from a market that was not over or under-supplied. In determining this indicator price at a level of 3s. 2d. a dozen, we have had regard to experience over the past six years, since the Board was first established. The price during those six years has fluctuated between 3s. 6d. at the top and 2s. 10d. at the bottom, and the Union has


agreed that this determination is fair and proper. This indicator price will be open to review in future years, but we do not expect that there will be any need to change it frequently.
The guaranteed price will, of course, continue to be fixed in the usual way at the Annual Review, and the basic rate of subsidy payable to the Board on all eligible eggs will be the difference between the guaranteed price and the indicator price, or the difference between the guaranteed price and the actual market price if this is above the indicator price.
The essential concept, therefore, is quite simple. It is that the Board will continue to receive the full guarantee price for all eggs if the market price is net depressed by over-supply, but, if it is depressed at all, this will to some extent be reflected in the sum paid to the Board and, therefore, in returns to producers.
We felt it right in taking this essentially simple idea to write into the Order three refinements. The first is that we recognise that it would be desirable to phase in this new system over a period of years during which the Government would continue to pay a proportion, although a proportion diminishing over the years, of any deficiency between the indicator price of 3s. 2d. and the actual price on the market that is realised by the Board. Article 7 (2) of the Order provides that we should start this year by paying 60 per cent, of this deficit, should it arise, and that in subsequent years the proportion should be reduced to 50 per cent., 40 per cent., and so on, until, in the end, no part of the deficit is borne by the Exchequer.
The second refinement to the indicator price system—the basic idea—comes in when the actual price realised by the Board is above the indicator price of 3s. 2d. If, in these circumstances, the subsidy were confined to the difference between the guaranteed price and the actual market price, the Board would derive no advantage from any further improvement in the market situation even though the Board was helping to bring that improvement about—perhaps at considerable expense to itself. In recognition of this, Article 7 (1) provides that, when the Board's realised price is above the indicator price, it should pay to the Government only two-thirds of the ex-

cess, and should retain one-third as an incentive to get the best return on the market.
The third refinement is of a rather different kind. It refers to the level of imports, and is dealt with in the proviso that hon. Members will find in Article 4. As I have said, we are virtually self-sufficient in eggs, and although there have been some imports in recent years they have represented only about 2 per cent, or 3 per cent.—about 2½ per cent.—of total supplies, and since these imports have, in fact, been arriving, they have been reflected in our calculation of the indicator price. On the other hand, we recognise that in introducing this variant on a standard quantity system, we ought in some way to allow for the possibility that the volume of imports could increase, adding to total supplies on our own market and depressing prices. Therefore, in order to do this, we have provided that Ministers may reduce the indicator price and thereby increase the rate of subsidy to the Board in certain circumstances.
The Ministers would need to be satisfied on two counts before they raise the subsidy paid to the Board. First, they would have to be satisfied that during any part of the year imports have risen above the normal level; and, secondly, that such an increase in subsidy was justified having regard to the Board's average selling price during the part of the year in question and over the whole year.
This legal provision is in the general terms which I have indicated, but I should go on to say that the precise way in which the provision would operate has been worked out and agreed with the farmers' unions. It will be set out in full in the annual financial agreement which will be between the Ministers and the Board, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House in lue course. An indication of the way in which this will work out is also to be found in outline in Part II of Appendix 6 of the White Paper. I do not think, therefore, that I need go into further details.
Assuming that in any one month imports are above a normal level, and assuming also that in that month the market price is below the seasonal equivalent of the annual indicator price, advance payment will be made to the


Board in respect of the excess imports. This advance payment will be confirmed at the end of the year if the Board has not finally achieved the indicator price for that year. The payment will be the equivalent of 36s. per box coming into the country, which is an estimate of the loss which the Board might sustain if it were obliged to break out eggs rather than sell them in shell.
Some people may say that we have replaced a very complex Order by one of equal complexity. I do not think that this is true. The arrangement is essentially simple. There is the indicator price, the guaranteed price and the three refinements which I have explained to the House. I think that this system represents a fair and proper arrangement appropriate to the present circumstances where hen eggs are concerned. I hope that the House will accept this and I recommend the Order to the House.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We on this side of the House will certainly not oppose the Order. I detect from mutterings from the benches opposite that there are certain hon. Members in the Conservative Party who dislike it. I trust that in that case they will have the courage to vote against it. I always find in agriculture that Tory rebels are prepared to wound their Ministers but not to kill them.
Consequently, I still believe that those rebels who dislike the Order will not have the courage to go into the Lobby against it. I hope, therefore, that they will not waste the time of the House with long speeches which may have some bearing on their own position in their agricultural constituencies but which will not be effective. If they believe in their criticism they should have the courage to oppose the Order, though I am delighted that some of them oppose the Ministers who have put forward the scheme.
This is a new procedure and the indicator price system is complicated. I think that every hon. Member would agree that at this late hour the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has done very well in trying to explain how it will work. The Order is made under Sections 1, 35(3) and 36(3) of the Agriculture Act, 1957, and the introduction of the indica-

tor price system, which was foreshadowed in the White Paper, represents a new and complicated egg-marketing procedure. We sometimes used to taunt those who believed in the Common Market about target prices, intervention prices, sluice-gate prices, and so on, but here the indicator price must be just as complicated as any of those.
In certain circumstances, when there is a danger of over-supply, there will be, virtually, a regulator. This is the purpose of Article 4 of the Order which provides that, for each guarantee year, the Ministers will determine in respect of hen eggs a guaranteed price per dozen and an indicator price
being an estimate by the Ministers of the average price to be received by the Board on the sale of hen eggs on the basis that production thereof is sufficient but not excessive.
and that imports are normal. I accept from the Minister the statement that imports have been in the region of 2 or 3 per cent, and have not been a problem. Nevertheless, we face here the possibility of over-supply.
It affects many small producers. Are we to encourage the small producers by exhortation to increase their efficiency and produce more? This is the fundamental issue. If they do produce more, will they then be penalised by a deliberate act of Government policy? By the mechanism which we are asked to approve tonight, we shall say to the small farmers of this country that, if they produce more, they will suffer as a consequence.
This is the crazy situation in which we are now. We are asking our small producers to produce more eggs. Eggs are important not only for home consumption but, in a sensible arrangement, could be of value to the outside world also. Here we are to have a policy of restriction. That is what it comes to in the long run. The Minister and hon. Members opposite must appreciate that this is the underlying principle we are now endorsing. We can argue about the effect of the indicator price but, in the end, the Government are worried that there will be too many eggs produced by our farmers the majority of them small fanners. How are we to prevent the effect of this over-supply on the market?
I take the view that, somehow, we must fit our British farming structure into


an international arrangement. It is not being idealistic to remind the House that many parts of the world are hungry today. We need an international arrangement, and, above all, we need international commodity agreements and a world food board. In this country, we must make our contribution along with that of the Western world to the production of food which, though there may be a surplus, can be disposed of to those parts of the world which want it.
What better opportunity have we than in egg production? Will the Government give the lead? I do not elaborate the matter because I do not wish to delay the House, and I know that the rebels who will wish to speak against the Government are rather "phoney" rebels because they will not vote against the Minister but accept what he says kindly and will even invite him down to their constituencies to support them on agricultural policy. I accept the Order, but for the long term it is not good enough. It is restrictionism. We must think, in bigger terms, of our small farmers producing commodities and, even though there may be a surplus, being able to dispose of it through international arrangements. I want the Government to take the initiative in the F.A.O. to create the sort of body which, I believe, could be created if only we had the will and leadership so to do.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister to accept that this Order is a stop-gap measure and no more. There is in the Order a reference to 30th March, 1969, but, of course, the Government will not be there then. There will have to be a new approach, and it is necessary that the Minister, in his negotiations now with the producers and the National Farmers' Union, adopt a wider approach rather than the policy of restriction which is typified by the Order. I ask that those hon. Members opposite who may be critical will really have the vision to see that we need not only a new Government but a new agricultural policy and a new and wider approach.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I would respectfully suggest, has completely misjudged the feelings of many people on these benches this evening. We are certainly not going to do

his dirty work for him because he has not got an alternative policy to offer.

Mr. Peart: It is not dirty work to point out that we must have egg production related to some wider agreement. I would think that a constructive approach. If the hon. Member chooses to use that epithet "dirty", I can only assume it is because of the colleagues he mixes with.

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Member should have let me finish my argument. Surely this Order comes at a very important time. We have just had a report from N.E.D.C. indicating the scope for increased agricultural production and important comments in some of the more serious Sunday newspapers. We are here to welcome particular aspects of this Order and, in particular, the third refinement which my hon. Friend has just mentioned. I think that this is a very important moment for those who represent agricultural constituencies, because at long last we have got the Government to accept the fact that if they decide they are going to allow import of eggs into a market which is already over-supplied, then there is a reflection in the guarantees which they pay the farmers.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington has completely misjudged people. He just does not appreciate how very important this is to some constituencies. Here is an Order marking a future shape of our agricultural guarantees, and I hope that it will be reflected in my right hon. Friend's thinking of fat-stock and cereals, because I believe that this indicator price principle we are here to welcome tonight marks one of the most important moments in our agricultural history.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: We have just listened with interest to all that praise of the Minister. There are one or two things in what the Minister said and in the Order I would ask about. Things need to be defined. We have now reached the pitch where the average fanner must also be a high-powered mathematician to work out these formulae coming before us.
Let us come to the nub of this, paragraph 4, "Guaranteed Prices and Payments". We have this statement that


an indicator price, being an estimate by the Ministers of the average price to be received by the Board on the sale of hen eggs on the basis that production thereof is sufficient but not excessive having regard to the national demand therefor and to normal imports into the United Kingdom during the year of hen eggs produced outside".
How are normal imports to be judged? Are we to have our arm twisted by people from Denmark or the European Economic Community? Has Dr. S. L. Mansholt twisted the arm of the Minister when they dined the other Friday? These are things the public want to know. What are normal imports? Has the Minister to bow down to the Treasury before he makes his decisions? On what formula is the word "normal" here based? There is no answer here.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The "normal" in this context means 950,000 boxes a year.

Mr. Davies: That is a little more information that we have extracted. Let us now move a little further. This seems to be the law of the Medes and Persians. How was it arrived at?
Will the industry, with this formula, be able to bold the home market in eggs with benefit both to itself and to the housewife? Also the egg industry is a really serious business. Taking this Order together with the 1963 Price Review, am I absolutely correct in assuming, without being dogmatic, that the Government share in losses below the indicator price by 1969–70 will be nil? That is what was said, and I believe it to be correct. What happens to the industry, which is assumed at the moment to be in an affluent position, after that period? How far-seeing is the Government's policy in this regard? There is no indication of farsightedness.
The Minister said that a proportion of the eggs go through the Board. Am I right in assuming that 40–50 per cent, of eggs are sold illegally at the moment? For the little man in some areas—I am grateful for it on behalf of some of the small farmers and egg producers in my area—there is a bonanza going on with the supermarkets and large stores. But it should be remembered by the farming and poultry industry that though there may be a bonanza now and those concerned

may be selling their commodities to one large combine or store, the squeeze may suddenly be put on them and, if they are out of the Board's organisation, they may be in the hands of an unscrupulous group which is concerned first and foremost with the amount of profit that it can get out of the purchasing of these commodities.
An example comes from the pre-war pottery industry. There was a terrific depression, and many small potters were delighted to sell the old 6d. brown earthernware teapot to the big stores, and their output was diverted to them. Suddenly the price was forced lower and lower for large quantities. So the danger may be that when we come to 1969–70, unless the Government have a far-sighted policy, we shall once again have the pathetic free market for all of the thirties.
Applying common sense to this, I do not think that there is any need, in spite of the differences that we have had across the Floor of the House, to divide against the Order. We want it to be introduced. I am sure that all hon. Members present want a square deal for this struggling industry.
I want to extend a point made by my hon. Friend. We must be certain about the issue of over-production. The other day the Minister spoke about a world food plan. Whatever Government are in power, we must link our agricultural policy to the underprivileged parts of the world and have a world food plan.
Do not let us, therefore, axe the small producer of what is one of the most nourishing and important products in the world and one which can be easily transported. I have not the "know-how" about how this can be done, but others have and we know that it can be done. I hope, therefore, that when we introduce a policy like this we shall not also discourage people who have enterprise from coming into the poultry and egg-producing industry, because the world will want the help of all the Western world's surplus foods and we can find a formula for distributing them.

10.41 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: On Thursday afternoons, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has answered questions about future de-


bates, I have often listened to hon. Members, from all sides, pressing him for a debate on the Agricultural Price Review. Tonight, we have the opportunity of debate unlimited by time—it is exempted business; there is no need to hurry it—and yet we sec a rather thin House, with no members of the Liberal Party present. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is usual."] An hon. Friend of mine says that that is usual, but we know that the Liberals have no interest whatever in the farming community.
It is, I think, generally recognised that there is quite a lot of dissatisfaction in the farming community that in the last three years their incomes as a whole have not kept pace with the incomes of those employed on the factory floor and of those in the professions, like doctors.

Mr. Peart: That is because of the Government's agricultural policy.

Sir H. Harrison: If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will let me develop my theme, I will come to that.
When considering eggs, we should think of the many people who are engaged in the industry. It covers nearly the whole of agriculture and a great many more people beyond. Even today, many farmers' wives still keep poultry, but not in the old-fashioned way with a few hens scratching around and being given some surplus grain. Many farmers' wives have deep litter houses and are efficient.
There is a second section of the industry consisting of poultry-keepers who are full-time on the job. Many of them have built up their businesses from small beginnings and are extremely efficient people. There is a third category amongst men who have retired from another occupation on a small pension and who, in late middle age, have taken to supplementing their income by having a laying stock of 200, 300 or even 500 birds. They form an important part of the industry. Fourthly, there are a number of people who do full-time jobs but in their spare time run a small flock of 50 or 100 laying birds as part-timers.
Very often, cheap jokes are made in the papers about the easy way of losing money by taking on a chicken farm because a playboy or playgirl has started at it. The vast majority of people in

in the industry, however, are decent people who earn, if not their full living, at least part of their living from keeping poultry. We owe a great debt of thanks to the industry for the way in which it has expanded. I remember that when I came back from being a prisoner of the Japanese it was difficult to get one egg a week, and we have to thank this industry for what it has done.
We are not only considering egg producers. We must also think of those in the ancillary trades—if the egg producers are making a profit these trades do well—and these include carpentering, steel, glass, plastics and rubber appliances. Before the war I was for many years in the feedingstuffs trade in East Anglia and called on many poultry keepers. It was difficult for them then, as they often had to sell their eggs at 20 for one shilling. What they want now is not an exorbitant or high return for their endeavours but a fair return.
Time and again they see increased costs of distribution being put on to the price of eggs and a good case made out for the increase. But it is a lot more difficult for them to gain an increase. I believe many of the distribution costs could be cut. I was a little disappointed in my hon. Friend's speech, but he has plenty of time to reply. Although he dealt with the intricacies of the Order he did not give me an assurance that the producers in the industry will have a higher income in the forthcoming year than in the past two years. That is what matters to them more thany anything else.
Quite recently, this House, led by the Minister, following a Report of the Estimates Committee, decided that the whole cost of combating fowl pest could not continue to fall on the Exchequer. This has thrown £6 million a year on to the poultry industry. I agree that some of it falls on the broiler industry but a great deal is on the egg producers. Many of them feel that they are guinea pigs being tried out in experiment. Many big farmers have followed the Minister's request, and have carried out vaccination and believe the dead vaccine to be very good. But some of them have suffered loss of production, when they have had the disease.
In calculating this new price, has any allowance been made for the cost to the


industry which it will suffer by loss of production if flocks suffer from fowl pest? We have also had a recent case of disease in liquid eggs coming on to the market. This is rather distressing because of the disease spreading from them. Is there any control over liquid eggs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard of bonanzas and pottery and other things, but disease is very difficult in relation to eggs. If it affects the indicator price, by all means, but disease does not affect it in the ordinary way.

Sir H. Harrison: I will try to keep in order, Mr. Speaker. The effect of disease, even in liquid eggs, can affect prices of shell eggs, and that is what is worrying many producers in East Anglia.
I am very perturbed that this Order still continues to allow the import of foreign eggs.

Mr. Peart: Then vote against it.

Sir H. Harrison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. He may find that I shall do so. We are told that the position is a little better, but why tinker about with the problem of imports? According to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, we produce enough ourselves. Why, then, allow foreign eggs to be imported? The total is about two per cent, but our industry can produce that amount more perfectly well. This country is in a strong enough position to prohibit the import of foreign shell eggs. I believe that this would benefit not only the egg producer but the taxpayer who has to find the money by way of support prices, and what the consumer wants is stable and steady prices.
If there is over-production of eggs, they can be held in cold storage. If we have a total ban on the import of eggs and there is a shortage, the President of the Board of Trade can allow eggs to come in for a short period, just as, following the hard winter, he allowed foreign vegetables to come in.
I remind my hon. Friend, and I should like him to remind my right hon. Friend, that the Conservative Party fought the 1950 election on the basis that the British farmer came first.

Mr. Peart: The Conservative Party lost that election.

Sir H. Harrison: The British farmer does come first, and I think that it is time——

Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the British farmer comes first, but earlier he talked about the small producers and said that they had been in difficulties for some years. How does he square his two statements?

Sir H. Harrison: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman got me right, because they have been expanding all the time. I said that there was dissatisfaction with their income at the moment; not over the last eleven years. I have supported the Conservative Party's agricultural policy in the Lobby and elsewhere, and I think that the 1957 Act was a particularly good one. But a different situation exists today, and I believe that we should place the British farmer first and prohibit the import of foreign eggs. There was an excellent article on this subject by Mr. Rees Mogg in the Sunday Times.
At the last Price Review the Minister hinted at changes in prices, and I believe that the farming industry wants the import of all foreign food to be controlled. This is what I, too, want to see, and I ask my hon. Friend whether there is anything in this Order which prohibits the import of foreign eggs if the Minister wanted to introduce such a prohibition.
It is often said that we have to permit these imports because of the effect that a ban would have on our export trade. Most of these eggs come from Poland. We are under no obligation to that country, and I think that our export trade is strong enough to enable us to ban the import of shell eggs. If we had entered the Common Market, which at one stage it was the Government's intention to do, we could not have allowed the import of Polish eggs.

Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if we had entered the Common Market we could not have accepted eggs from Poland. If we had gone in, we might have had to accept eggs from the countries of the Six. Would he have agreed with that?

Sir H. Harrison: I am saying that if we had gone into the Common Market we would have kept Polish eggs out, and I see no reason why we should not keep them out now.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about keeping Polish eggs out. If we produce only 15,000 tons of liquid frozen eggs, against a requirement of 30,000 tons, how would my hon. and gallant Friend make up the difference?

Sir H. Harrison: We are discussing shell eggs and not liquid eggs. It is generally accepted that most of the shell eggs that we import come from Poland and that they depress the market here at certain times of the year. I am prepared to vote against this Order on the narrow ground that it is time we prohibited the import of shell eggs. If this goes to a Division, I shall vote against it on that narrow point.

Mr. Peart: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not do that.

Sir H. Harrison: I shall.
I ask my hon. Friend, are poultry keepers to be better off in the coming year than they have been in the past? Has allowance been made for fowl pest? Will my right hon. Friend be in a position in future to prohibit import of foreign eggs?

10.55 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on his speech. In past years when dealing with egg Orders he has not been so keen to continue the debate late at night. It is pleasant that he has now joined us in asking that justice should be done for British agriculture.
I wish to take issue with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). At the moment the subsidy for eggs is £24 million a year. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that there should be no restriction of output and that we should use the additional output to supply under-developed countries on a world plan. Does he think that we should produce eggs in this country and pay our producers a price which involves a subsidy of £24 million a year and that that would enable us to send extra eggs to under-developed countries at a cost of

that kind? That, in effect, is what he was saying. Does he consider that this is good value for money? Does he think it a right way to help the underdeveloped countries? Is this a good use of £24 million and a good use of our resources? If so, we have to accept that the right thing to do would be to produce 100 per cent, more eggs here.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has asked a direct question which is reasonable and fair. He has asked it before. I take the view that from a long-term point of view the answer would be yes. I believe that the affluent countries of the West with their surpluses must help the under-developed countries. I am glad that the National Fanners' Union and the producer organisations take this view. In their farm and food policy they have pledged themselves to support a world food board. I was trying to spell out what should be Government policy. Egg producers on a small scale have no future unless we link our own agricultural system to a larger concept, not just in the Europe of the Six, but a larger community and a world food board. I hope that, instead of criticising this view, the hon. Member will be as constructive as he usually is and support it.

Mr. Prior: I am trying to be constructive, because I believe that this is an important point, but we have to recognise that it will not be just £24 million if we produce at the present rate, but it could be £50 million or £60 million. Is it right for this country to produce eggs at perhaps 110 per cent, or 120 per cent, above our own needs and send the surplus to under-developed countries when it would cost £50 million or £60 million to do so?
That would be a bad use of our national resources and a bad use of resources available to under-developed countries. If we are to help those countries we must do so in the right way. The wrong way would be by sending them dried eggs at a cost to this country of perhaps £40 million or £50 million. It would be wrong to send eggs which perhaps they could themselves produce. I accept that an affluent society has a responsibility towards them, but our duty is to help them to produce more of the protein foods themselves. If, as is suggested, we allow every small producer in this


country to produce eggs ad lib and pay what we can call an encouraging price, then I think we should be guilty of folly in the extreme and that the Conservative Party would not support such a policy.

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Member says that he wants to be constructive, as indeed he always is; but he says things tonight which make me think he is putting up Aunt Sallies to be knocked down. He draws a picture of unlimited egg production in Britain to such an extent that everywhere we go we shall be treading on eggs. The hon. Gentleman must remember the important factor of day-old chicks and— —

Mr. Speaker: There are some limitations to the possibilities of an intervention in somebody else's speech.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but there is the old question of which came first—the chicken or the egg.

Mr. Speaker: That can be very briefly stated.

Mr. Davies: I will simply say that it is no use the hon. Member speaking as he has been speaking without thinking of the by-product of eggs.

Mr. Prior: To reply to the hon. Member's intervention, if prices are to be on such a level as will encourage producers to produce at a high rate— which is, in fact, what would happen if we had not reduced the price over recent years—we shall be in danger. After all, it is very noticeable that in all the products where we have reduced prices in the last few years eggs have taken the biggest knock. By better processes, and more research and more investment, we have been able to produce eggs at a much cheaper price over recent years. Do let us get that point quite straight in our minds. I put it to the Minister that the present scheme is an improvement on what we have had before, but does it make sense that in this country we should put on a subsidy of between £20 million and £40 million a year for what is, really, the privilege of keeping out of this country only 3 per cent, of our total production of eggs? That is, in fact, what we are doing for reasons of trade.
We want to trade with Poland and with China, and, in the case of China,

one of my hon. Friends is righting a battle to try to keep out her eggs because of the paratyphoid disease factor. If we are to pay this subsidy, it ought to be for the industry of the country as a whole, because this subsidy is no more than a subsidy to enable trade to exist between this country and Poland and China.
The main point of this subsidy is to allow our exports to be sold to Poland and China, and it is not for the benefit of British agriculture which could quite easily produce a hundred per cent. of its own requirements and need no subsidy at all for the purpose for which it is given. Eggs will still sell quite well up to a price of 6s. a dozen without any falling off of price, and there is no need for any artificial stimulation to keep egg prices down.
In this Order, which as I have said is an improvement on what we have had before, we are giving a subvention, not to British agriculture, but a subvention to British trade with other countries.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I intended asking only a few questions, but the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) have raised so many points that I am tempted, within the rules of order, to enter the debate in a much fuller way. The hon. Member for Lowestoft has put his finger on an important point—for we cannot divorce the liquid egg market from the whole egg market. It affects it to a considerable extent. I was interested to hear that the Conservative Party were talking about controlling imports; that shows that their education is improving as the years go by.
We see the same picture with the Milk Marketing Board and the manner in which the surplus milk, which goes to manufacture, is used, for that is equivalent to the liquid egg market. In dealing with eggs, however, we have the added difficulty of considerable uncontrolled imports—and imports which are not steady. There is not a steady flow of imports of Polish eggs, for example; they may be large in number one year and small the next year. This creates a problem, and the only solution is to arrange a steady flow of imports, and that can be done only by controlling imports.
As a member of the Committee which recommended the fowl pest control which the Minister introduced, I want to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Eye. The £6 million was compensation paid for chickens which were slaughtered, and I am sure that the First Secretary hopes, as I hope, that this will not be a loss to the industry and that the only cost to the industry will be part of the cost of the vaccine, which is heavily subsidised.

Sir H. Harrison: There will be a loss to the industry because where there has been fowl pest, egg production will have fallen during that period.

Mr. Mackie: There is fairly strong evidence that, as we all hope, the killed vaccine will be successful. We hope that the £6 million will fall neither on the taxpayer nor on the industry.
The House will be glad to know that I now turn to the questions which I want to ask. How does the Minister arrive at a normal figure of 950,000 cases, which I think is 37,500,000 dozen eggs? That is seven or eight eggs per person per year. One remembers what the hon. and gallant Member for Eye said about people after the war getting only one egg a month. How do the Ministry arrive at this curious "normal" figure?
Is this a start to controlling imports—for they cannot handle the situation without controlling imports? Why have a guaranteed price and an indicator price? What is the difference between the two? If there is a guaranteed price, could it not also be the indicator price? It seems to me that the prices could be the same.
I want a clarification of paragraph 7. The Minister said that he worked out the differences on a monthly basis, but there is nothing to that effect in the Order, which reads,
If for any year the average selling price of hen eggs is higher than the indicator price thereof, the Board shall pay to the Minister two-thirds of the difference in respect of each dozen hen eggs packed in that year: Provided that the total amount payable by the Board to the Minister under this paragraph shall not exceed the total amount which may be paid by the Minister to the Board … in respect of the same year.
I do not understand where these two do not tie up, but, if I am given that clarification then, like my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I may support the Order.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was most intrigued when the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) gave political advice which I took it was directed at my hon. Friend the gamekeeper turned poacher. I could not help casting my mind back to the Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, when the hon. Member charged to my support when I put forward what I thought to be a worthy Amendment. The hon. Member was followed faithfully by his hon. Friends until the moment came when it appeared that there would be a Division, whereupon his followers fled through the door, leaving two behind who abstained. This did not seem quite to conform with the advice which the hon. Member gave us earlier today.
I should prefer to see the figures in Article 7(2) of the Schedule to the Order read successively from 1964 as 60 per cent., 70 per cent., and 80 per cent., and so on, in that ascending order. Then there would be brought home to the Treasury, and through it to the Board of Trade, the need to control the imports of eggs, whereas the way in which the figures are published gives the impression that there is a decrease rather than an increase with the passage of time. This may be due to a printers' error, but I would ask that when next year the percentage is shown as falling to 50 per cent, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should introduce a new Order to alter the figures in the way I have suggested. It would be extremely helpful.
I was horrified by the idea expressed in the debate that the £24 million eggs subsidy represents a subsidy of £24 million worth of imports from Poland. This is a shocking allegation. This is the right moment to remind all of us that the only point of trading with a country is that it sends us the goods we want, or else pays in convertible currency. As Polands sends £19 million worth of exports to us out of the £24 million worth of exports in products covered by the Agricultural Price Review, this is obviously a thoroughly unprofitable form of trade which we should do everything in our power to discourage and minimise rather than encourage.
This goes for practically all the Iron Curtain countries and is the best reason for diminishing rather than increasing


East-West trade. I hope that hon. Members opposite will trouble themselves to look at the proportion of East-West trade in agricultural products covered by the Price Review and thus swallow their political nostrums and do everything in their power to discourage this damaging form of trade.

Mr. Harold Davies: This is pathetic. We have just had a £26 million order from the Soviet Union. Orders which have nothing to do with agriculture provide work in places like my constituency, which at the moment are suffering from unemployment under Tory rule.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop The hon. Member is 180 degrees out. I was not talking about orders from abroad given to us.

Mr. Davies: East-West trade.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not say that it was diminishing or increasing. I was referring to the proportion of their exports to us which are covered by the Agricultural Review. If the hon. Member goes to the Library and does his homework, he will find these interesting facts for himself. This is worth putting on record because many of those who, purely for political reasons, advocate East-West trade do not bother to find out the facts about the effect on our own agricultural industry.

Mr. Mackie: If the same calculation were made it would be found that exactly the same applies to Canada.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not know, but I would doubt it very much. I would doubt it very much, because we take considerable quantities of basic raw materials from Canada—for instance, oil; for instance, asbestos; for instance, nickel, just to mention a few, and aluminium, which are not to the best of my knowledge—I am open to correction-covered by the Annual Price Review. All this can be very easily checked by those who care to go to the Library and do their own homework.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: By leave of the House, I would reply to the main points made in this debate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) made a rather strange charge at the beginning of his speech when he said that

we had been encouraging the small producer to produce more eggs. This is indeed not the case. We have not been encouraging the egg producers as a whole to produce more.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be completely at variance with what his noble Friend whom I quoted said when speaking next door. His noble Friend said that there was no point in producing eggs if there was no market in which to sell them. Nevertheless, I can well under stand the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my noble Friend speaking "next door". I am not sure what he means. It is strange. Next door!

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman knows very well what I mean. If he likes I will quote what I quoted before from his noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman is not at one with the rest of his party. That seems to happen often in the Socialist Party.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) asked how we estimated the normal import of eggs. I gave him the answer: 950,000 boxes per year. This is the average level of the 2 per cent, to 3 per cent, of imports coming into this country. I must emphasise once again that these arrangements have been agreed with the Farmers' Unions as fair and proper. It is on that estimate that this figure has been arrived at.
The hon. Member asked me about the 40 per cent. sold over the farm gate. It is extremely difficult to estimate what the full amount is, but I hasten to say there is no question of illegality here at all. The farmer is perfectly entitled to sell them——

Mr. Harold Davies: Yes.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: —to the consumer if he wants to come to him. There is no illegality, and there is no black market as there happened to be under the regime of the Socialist Party between 1945 and 1950.

Mr. Davies: I did not mean it like that.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The other point he asked me about was the arrangements in 1970. I am sure he has read the part of the Order—the Schedule—which will answer him as clearly as I can.
I turn very briefly to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for


Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who, unfortunately, has left us. No, he has not he is at the bottom of the Chamber. I thought for a moment he might have gone next door as well! He talked about a £24 million subsidy to allow free import coming in, particularly from Poland and elsewhere. That is not so. We estimate 2½ per cent, only as the amount of imports coming into the market. The reason for the subsidy running at this figure is the amount of over-production here at some times. This is what has depressed prices.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said he could not understand why we should have an indicator price and a guaranteed price. This goes to the fundamentals of the matter. I will not weary the House by going over it all again, but it is the difference between the guaranteed price which is alterable and is determined at the Annual Review and the indicator price fixed at 3s. 2d. per dozen which one hopes will not be moved too often or too much, and probably will not be. It is the difference between these prices which the Board receives from the Government every year.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) asked a very pertinent question. He has been answered on the questions of farm costs and the disease element. These matters are all taken into account in the determinations at the Annual Review. He asked for an assurance that the industry would have a higher income. I cannot give that assurance. As he must appreciate, it depends on the level at which production runs, how the industry conducts itself and the level at which it fixes and runs its production during the coming years. It will be up to the industry whether these arrangements give it higher prices at the end of the year.
The Order provides for help to be given by the third refinement I mentioned earlier if disturbance is caused over the import situation. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me whether I would or would not prohibit imports. The answer is that I would not. There is surely no question of that. Indeed, sometimes we need these imports. The market is not affected by 2–3 per cent, in the way my hon. and gallant Friend suggested.

Mr. Prior: Before my hon. Friend says that the sum of £24 million is not

the result of imports, would he answer this question? If we had no imports at all, surely the Egg Marketing Board would be able to regulate its price levels and ensure that there were sufficient eggs on the market? There is no question of our not being able to produce enough eggs at reasonable prices. Complete control over eggs coming in would save the country £24 million per year of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend is not quite right there. What influences the market is not necessarily the 2–3 per cent, of imports. The arrangements under the Order will be made, and are being made, so that the Board will be compensated if eggs come in in excessive quantities at any time. If there was a complete ban on imports, the Board could still be faced with overproduction in this country, in which case the price would be depressed and the liability to the Exchequer could be at a very high level. It is through over-production at home that the subsidy has been arrived at.
I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that he seemed to want, and I am sure that he did not really mean it in the terms in which he expressed it.

Sir H. Harrison: My hon. Friend has now said that we can produce these eggs here. He has produced no valid reason for allowing eggs in from Poland. I find his answer unsatisfactory, and on the point of imports I shall vote against the Order.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend cannot see the force of the argument that I am putting to him concerning the import position, namely that anything over 2–3 per cent. is being taken care of in the Order by the third refinement. The Board is being compensated for any imports which come in over and above the 950,000 boxes, and the N.F.U. is quite satisfied with this. Indeed, the N.F.U. has expressed its agreement with the figures and the arrangements under the Order, particularly concerning imports. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, on due reflection, will realise that we have gone a very long way to help the industry. I am convinced that the new Order will lead it to greater stability in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL EMPLOYMENT [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the payment of grants under the Local Employment Act 1960 towards the cost of machinery, plant and buildings required by undertakings in development districts, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under or by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session—
(a) authorising the payment of grants towards expenditure incurred on or after 3rd April 1963 in equipping with machinery or plant industrial undertakings in development districts within the meaning of the said Act of 1960, being grants of an amount equal to 10 per cent, of the cost of acquiring and installing the machinery or plant;
(b) directing that the amount of any grant to be made under section 3 of the said Act of 1960 (building grants) shall be 25 per cent, of the expenditure incurred in providing a building or extension of a building, except in the case of applications in respect of which a grant under that section was offered before 3rd April 1963, and extending for the purposes of that section and of the said Act of the present Session the references to buildings and the provision of buildings;
(c) enabling the Board to exercise their powers under sections 2 and 5 of the said Act of 1960 in relation to land in a locality which has at any time ceased to be a development district so far as may be necessary for the purpose of fulfilling any agreement entered into by the Board before that time;
and the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Board under or by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LAND, SCORTON AERODROME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of Scorton Aerodrome. In the short time that I have been a Member of the House, I have never had a constituency problem which has convinced me more than this one does that if the Government continue to pursue this case in the way they are attempting to do, great injustice will be done to my constituents who are attempting to buy back their land which has been used as an aerodrome since the beginning of the war.
The story begins in 1938. Land was bought under the compulsory purchase procedure from eight farmers in the North Riding of Yorkshire for the purpose of constructing a satellite aerodrome. All the eight previous owners wished to buy their land back. Five of them lost amounts of land ranging from 17½ acres to 1·6 acres. Five of them are having their land returned at the agricultural price, which is about double what they received in 1938, when the land was taken over. The other three—Mr. Bell, Mr. Barker and Mrs. Cail—lost 65, 81 and 67 acres respectively. These three are the ones I wish to deal with.
At the beginning of the war they received just over £50 an acre. Now they are being asked to pay between £380 and £400 an acre, because of the gravel that is under the land. I must point out that this is no new discovery. In the latter part of the 19th century gravel was excavated from this land to supply the Darlington-Richmond railway line, and before the Air Ministry ever came on the scene Mr. Bell was selling gravel and getting 6d. a ton royalties, which was a very good price in those days. Mr. Barker had also, in April, 1938, started negotiations with the Bessacarr Gravel Corn-party of Doncaster to sell gravel on his land.
I now turn to the correspondence between Mr. Bell and the Air Ministry in 1938. On 25th October that year he received a letter from the Air Ministry.


This, as the House will remember, was shortly after Munich and the country was in a bit of a panic. The letter said:
Sir,
I am directed to inform you that the Air Ministry has under consideration a proposal for the erection of a Satellite Aerodrome as shown on the enclosed plan. … I am to request that you will kindly inform the Air Ministry whether you are prepared to negotiate the terms for the disposal of the land to them on the understanding that the Air Ministry will compensate your tenant for the surrender of his tenancy of the land in the area to be acquired.
The letter went on to inquire about tithes and land taxes. Within two days Mr. Bell replied:
Dear Sir,
Under ordinary circumstances I should not have contemplated disposing of any part of this farm, but considering the purpose for which you propose to use the land I shall be prepared to negotiate with you.
As you said the matter is of some urgency may I point out that my agent and I could meet your representative on … November 4, 5 and 9.
It being a matter of great urgency, Mr. Bell received a letter on 27th July, 1939, this time from the Treasury Solicitor. It said:
I am desired by the Air Ministry to inform you that in connection with the defence programme it is necessary to acquire land in the Parish of Scorton, in the North Riding of the County of York in which it is understood you have an interest. I would explain that in serving upon you the accompanying Notice … the Air Ministry is adopting statutory procedure rendered necessary by the emergency extension of the Royal Air Force. In acquiring the land for defence purposes the Air Ministry has no desire or intention to act adversely to your interests …
I hope that my hon. Friend will note those words, because I shall develop my theme on the contents of that sentence to a slight extent.
Following that letter, negotiations to purchase proceeded under the threat of compulsory purchase. Mr. Bell was told to stop working his gravel, which he did, but during the negotiations he and Mr. Barker consistently pointed out to the Air Ministry that it should take into consideration the mineral deposits.
In fact, the Ministry repeatedly stated that it was a time of emergency and that the gravel had no value, and so they sold at the agricultural price of just over £54 an acre. Here it should be stated that they should never have agreed to

sell, but being patriotic individuals they were more concerned about helping the nation than with looking after their own interests.
As my hon. Friend realises, this satellite aerodrome was to be situated at Scorton, almost a stone's throw from Catterick Camp, which was one of the largest military centres at this time. They expected that those buying the land would give them a fair deal. How wrong they were. In fact the Air Ministry later came back to buy some more land from Mr. Barker who then stood out against the Ministry and asked it to requisition 65 acres of his land, which it did, and which it is interesting to note he has got back without having to pay for the minerals underneath it.
I turn now to 1959 when the Minister decided to sell the land back to the farmers concerned. This is where my hon. Friend comes into it to act as agent for the Secretary of State for Air, and I commiserate with him in the unfortunate position in which he finds himself, bedevilled by those in the Treasury who are interpreting the law to the letter, which I ask him not to adhere to any longer.
It is now being said by the mineral valuer that this land should be returned not at the agricultural price of about £100 an acre—double the price that was paid, but which my constituents would be willing under these circumstances to pay—but, because of the gravel about which we have known since the 19th century, at a price of between £380 and £400 an acre.
Mr. Bell who received £3,500 in 1939 for this land is now being asked to pay £18,000, and Mr. Barker, who received £4,800, is now being asked to pay £29,500, but they were being asked to pay these prices on the gamble that planning permission would be given for the development of this gravel. This they realised, and so did the mineral valuer who, much to the amazement of us all, applied to the county council for permission to develop the gravel, and was granted it. This action was, to say the least, a bit hot, and the Country Landowners' Association with which I have been in touch is very concerned about this action, as is the National Farmers' Union.
Let us consider it in this way: If Mr. Bell were to buy at this figure and then


were to die, or Mr. Barker or Mrs. Cail, then, because of the planning permission, Estate Duty would be very high. I think that it is true to say that those who are in the gravel business apply for planning permission for the amount of land that they desire to develop at the moment. No man with 65 acres of gravel would put in for planning permission for the lot and so put himself in such an intolerable position. If Mr. Barker were to buy and then to sell under three years, he would be caught under the capital gains tax. The Government have safeguarded their position in this direction. If he were to work the gravel, the Treasury would get the tax from the income which was made. The Treasury would be bound to benefit whatever the outcome of these negotiations.
What has been done goes further than the statement made by my predecessor over Crichel Down. I am convinced that it was never intended at the beginning of the war that land purchased for airfields or other Government requirements, because it was alleged it had no marketable value for gravel or other development at that time, should be assessed under difficult conditions when it was put back on the market to its previous owners. My predecessor was involved in the Crichel Down case. I am sure that he would be most disturbed if he felt that the interpretation of that statement was being treated in the way in which the Treasury appears to be treating it at present.
I say this most sincerely. The farmers in 1939 acted in the best interests of the nation. They expected fair treatment, which we can in no way pretend is being meted out to them now. I beg my hon. Friend to look at this situation in the light of the facts I have given. It must be remembered that this land was purchased by the Department of the Secretary of State for Air. The Department did the negotiations, not a mineral valuer. This is probably one of the reasons why mineral values are now being thrown as an additional burden on the farmers. This is a very considerable responsibility for the Government to take into consideration during these negotiations.
My hon. Friend must find himself in a very strange position. He is driving

the farmers who wish to carry on as farmers to turn themselves into gravel merchants. I do not know if he was watching television tonight. These two fanners were interviewed in the programme "Tonight". The B.B.C. realises the importance of this case. They said that they wanted their land back to farm it. That is their genuine wish and I hope my hon. Friend will look on the matter in that light.

11.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Kitson) for having brought this case forward and expounded his side of it so clearly and for having given me the opportunity of putting the Government's case equally clearly. I am afraid that there are one or two points of important detail on which we shall not agree, but to which I must draw attention.
It is important that we should run through, as my hon. Friend did, this unfortunate case of Scorton Airfield. In June, 1940, 65 acres of land owned by Mr. Bell, my hon. Friend's constituent, were bought by the Air Ministry together with land in other ownership, making 260 acres in all, for the purpose of constructing Scorton Airfield. I understand, as my hon. Friend has said, that terms were agreed by the Air Ministry with Mr. Bell without recourse to compulsion, although of course, compulsory powers were available. The Air Ministry served a notice to treat under the Defence Acts in June, 1939, and lodged a formal claim in the following month. This claim contained the words
no reservation of mines or minerals
and the Air Ministry's final offer, a year later, stated:
the property to be conveyed in fee simple, together with all mines and minerals".
Thus, negotiations clearly proceeded throughout on the understanding that minerals were included and this was how the land was sold. I must make it clear that I do not propose to enter into any further discussions of those terms or the circumstances in which they were arrived at. An agreement of this kind is made once for all. This one was


made by another Department and it was open to the vendor if he—in his full knowledge of the value of the land at the time—was dissatisfied with the terms offered, to force the acquiring Department to exercise compulsory powers and to take the claim to arbitration if he so wished under the arrangements which then existed. My hon. Friend put forward, quite sincerely, Mr. Bell's motives for not taking this course, and I appreciate that but I cannot do anything now which might expressly, or by implication, reopen, or appear to reopen, something which was freely agreed more than twenty years ago.

Mr. Kitson: But they were served with notice to treat—the first step in compulsory purchase. We were at war then, and there was no question of a mineral assessor looking into the matter in those days. An official from the Air Ministry looked into this, and Mr. Bell allowed him in, not to take more land, but to requisition it, which he did.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: At the time, the vendor, if he so wished, had the course of resorting to arbitration, and at this length of time afterwards I cannot by implication reopen what happened then.
It was incidentally agreed on at a time when the vendor had no reason whatever to expect that he would ever have an opportunity to recover the land and, with it, any part of its value he may have believed himself to have forgone on the sale. Indeed, had it not been for the decision announced in this House on 20th July, 1954, by the then Minister of Agriculture—my right hon. Friend's distinguished predecessor, Lord Crathorne, then the right hon. Member for Richmond—the very just decision to give the former owner the first offer when agricultural land is disposed of, it is more than likely that Mr. Bell would still have been whistling for a chance to get back his land.
I will now turn to more modern times. In 1946, when the land was no longer needed operationally, Scorton airfield was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture for agricultural development and management. Later, in 1956, the Ministry, as agent, was instructed by the Air Ministry to dispose of it. The Air Ministry remains the owner and will get the revenue from sale and I mention this to

correct an impression which seems to have got abroad in the Press that, to serve its own ends, my Ministry has been bent on screwing the last penny out of a hapless purchaser.
In 1959, there were discussions with all the former owners about the letting of the airfield and this was finally settled in the spring of 1960. The former owners expressed themselves as very satisfied with the result. In October, 1960, in accordance with instructions from my Ministry, the district valuer offered to Mr. Bell a lot of 65 acres at Scorton, the equivalent of his 1939 property. Mr. Bell expressed his dissatisfaction with the basis of valuation adopted in accordance with policy by the district valuer and has continued to do so ever since. He has, for this reason, continually refused to discuss the question of price, and this is why no price was formally put to him until a few weeks ago.
I would remind the House that, in his statement of 20th July, 1954, the then Minister said that, when land is offered back to a former owner or his heir, and I quote his words,
… this will be done at a price assessed by the district valuer as being the current market price".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1192.]
This has been, and remains, the Government's policy.

Mr. Kitson: But not in respect of Scorton.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The district valuer is independent of the disposing department.
This will, I hope, again dispel any idea that my Ministry, or the Air Ministry, is behaving ruthlessly in this matter. All that has been done has been done in accordance with established policy as applied under recognised procedures by the district valuer whose impartiality, I trust, is beyond question. Had Mr. Bell chosen to accept the district valuer's figure I have no doubt that, as in the case of his fellow owners at Scorton, agreement could have been reached long since and he would now have been at the point of recovering his land.
In one case, admittedly for a smallish area, contracts have been exchanged and conveyancing is completed. That is at one end of the airfield. In four other cases heads of agreement have been


signed, two before the end of last year and the other two rather more recently. The Treasury Solicitor has been instructed to proceed with the conveyancing. In the two remaining cases letters have been received by the mineral valuer of the valuation office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, confirming agreement on price.
To put the matter beyond doubt I propose to quote from two letters. This is my second point of disagreement with my hon. Friend. The first, of 8th October, 1962, on behalf of the executors of the late Mr. H. I. Cail says,
We are now pleased to confirm the offer, made by us on behalf of our client, of £10,500 …
The second, of 27th September, 1962, says,
We write in relation to the proposed resale of land to former owners of the Scorton Airfield to indicate that our client, Mr. W. G. Barker, is willing to re-purchase Plot No. 2",
one of the terms being that,
the price agreed, subject to contract, is the sum of £29,500.
My hon. Friend is not accurate in saying that Mr. Barker has got some of his land back at agricultural value. That is not so. I cannot therefore accept my hon. Friend's contention that Mr. Bell is not alone in his refusal to accept the district valuer's price. Mr. Bell has, however, made the point, and in this he has had my hon. Friend's support, that he ought not to be expected to pay anything for the mineral value of land which he has said was bought from him at agricultural valuation.
I can see no reason whatever why he should be treated differently from the other former owners at Scorton. Here I must emphasise that they have, as I have been given to understand, all been treated exactly alike. They have all been offered and with the one exception of Mr. Bell agreed to repurchase their land at the current market price as assessed by the district valuer. All of them—not just the three my hon. Friend mentioned—have mineral rights on the plots. The market price was assessed by the district valuer.

Mr. Kitson: Mineral valuer.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The current market price as assessed by the district valuer. In only four cases did the dis-

trict valuer's figure exceed the current agricultural market value, because it was only in these cases that the district valuer regarded the presence of minerals as enhancing the value of the land. These lots were Mr. Bell's, Mr. Barker's, the late Mr. Cail's and Mr. Atkinson's. Subsequent investigation showed that in the case of the late Mr. Cail's plot the mineral value had, for various reasons including the comparative poverty of the seams, to be largely discounted. There were less mineral rights than had originally been thought.
My hon. Friend made a point about the district valuer changing the figures. I take exception to the way in which he put this point, for in taking account of all the circumstances of the various lots the district valuer has to consider the development prospects. I understand that when approached in November, 1960, the county planning officer expected planning permission for winning sand and gravel to be granted for only a small area. This naturally depressed the district valuer's price. When the county planning officer was later approached in January, 1962, he gave a further opinion that the prospects of permission being granted had improved, because of the desirability of obtaining the gravel, although any objections and especially amenity objections would have to be carefully considered.

Mr. Kitson: Mr. Kitson rose——

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have not time to give way. This is not the same as applying for permission. No planning permission has been applied for. This opinion caused the district valuer to increase his price for the gravel-bearing lots, except Mr. Cail's for the reasons which I have already given.
I have not much time and I hope my hon. Friend will bear with me if I go quickly through the remainder of my case. In deference to his representations Mr. Bell's claim was carefully examined by Ministers in June, 1961, and as a result the then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed in September, 1961, that all former owners of Scorton should be allowed a concession. This was to offer the land on two alternative bases of valuation: on the one hand, the unencumbered freehold at the current market price as assessed by the district valuer; and, on the other hand, the freehold with the mineral rights reserved to the Air


Ministry, also at a price assessed by the district valuer. Unhappily this concession has failed to satisfy Mr. Bell or my hon. Friend.
The second leg would have allowed Mr. Bell the full agricultural use of the land—which was what the Ministry understood he was then seeking and what my hon. Friend seems to say—that is the full agricultural use of the land, barring mineral workings, in which case he would have been fully compensated for disturbance.
As I have said, we have now reached a point where Mr. Bell's fellow-claimants have all come to agreement with the district valuer and will shortly be getting their land back. It would not be fair to them and to other former owners who have been enabled by the Government's policy since 1954 to recover their land to make any departure from that policy in a further endeavour to try and satisfy the one outstanding claimant, Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell has offered £14,500 for the lot, which is only £3,500 under the district valuer's price. The £14,500 is well in excess of the agricultural value and suggests to me that Mr. Bell is greatly interested in the minerals but is hoping to strike a bargain below the current market value.

Mr. Kitson: Will my hon. Friend allow me to dispute that?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have only a minute or so left.
I have waited until this debate before taking a decision but now, to avoid this matter dragging on, I am instructing the Ministry to issue the final notice to Mr. Bell, giving him the normal three weeks in which to decide whether or not to purchase the land on either basis at the district valuer's figure. Failing his acceptance, the un-

restricted freehold of the land, that is with the minerals, will be offered for sale by public auction as soon as possible, where Mr. Bell, of course, will have a further opportunity to purchase. In the circumstances I see no reason for tolerating any further delay in bringing this one outstanding case to a conclusion.
I can quite understand my hon. Friend's feelings concerning this case and I know that he has fought hard and long for his constituent in what he thinks is right, but I hope that I have explained to the House that one or two of the facts which my hon. Friend put forward were not exactly accurate. I do not believe that my Ministry is or has been acting ruthlessly at all, and I should like to assure my hon. Friend that we have done all we can to see that Mr. Bell and others at Scorton Airfield have been and are being reasonably treated. The very fact of what has happened with the other former owners and that their lots have all been negotiated is proof——

Mr. Kitson: The other owners to whom my hon. Friend refers have agreed conditionally on what happens to Mr. Bell. The point is that, as they realised that the Department was about to put the lots on the market, they were almost forced into the position of making offers. Mr. Bell's offer of £14,500 was very ill-advised and he regrets having made it. It is quite a ridiculous situation.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.